Chattisgarh High Court
Laxmikant Koka vs Prabhakar Pandey on 29 August, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CONT No. 179 of 2020
• Laxmikant Koka son of Late Shri V.K. Koka, aged about 53 years,
presenting working as Assistant Grade-III, Nagar Nigam,
Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
------Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Prabhakar Pandey, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation,
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2. Dilip Tiwari, Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation,
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
-------Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge
ORDER
29/08/2022
1. Petitioner filed this contempt petition stating that respondents-
contemnors have willfully and deliberately disobeyed the direction
issued by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2019 passed in W.A.
No. 491/2017 and have not regularized the service of petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially
engaged in the year 1989 as daily wage employee but
subsequently he was disengaged from the services which made the
petitioner to file writ petition bearing W.P. No. 3843/2000 which
came to be allowed. He contended that initially the writ petition filed
by petitioner bearing WPS No. 3902/2013 seeking relief for
regularization of services of petitioner under Respondent 2 therein
came to be dismissed which was put to challenge in Writ Appeal
No. 491/2017 and the Division Bench of this Court had disposed of
the writ appeal directing to reconsider the claim of petitioner for
regularization afresh keeping in mind the re-engagement of
appellant on 05.09.2008. Respondent No. 1 misinterpreting the
Circular dated 05.03.2008 has rejected the claim of petitioner for
his regularization in the department. He also submits that since the
date of his re-engagement there was no break in service and the
petitioner has already completed 10 years continuous service.
3. Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for Respondents-contemnors
submits that the petitioner filed writ petition seeking regularization
of his services which came to be dismissed vide Annexure A-1 (in
the writ appeal). This order of dismissal was put to challenge in writ
appeal, however, the order passed by learned Single Judge and the
finding recorded therein was not set aside, the Division Bench
observed to consider the claim of petitioner considering his date of
re-engagement on 05.09.2008. The State Government has issued
Circular on 05.03.2008 for regularization of daily wages employees
in which certain guidelines have been issued as to the claim of
each employee had to be considered for regularization and as per
the clause mentioned therein, the claim of daily wage employee
appointed from 01.01.1989 to 31.12.1997 without any break in
services are to be considered. He also contended that learned
Single Judge has taken note of the fact that the petitioner was
disengaged in the year 2000 and thereafter he was re-engaged as
fresh on 05.09.2008 and therefore petitioner would not get any
benefit of the Circular dated 05.03.2008. He also contended that
the Division Bench has only issued the direction for considering the
claim of petitioner which had already been considered and finding
the petitioner's case not coming within the purview of the Circular
dated 05.03.2008, his claim was rejected.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Perusal of order Annexure O-1 would show that the Division Bench
of this Court, issued direction to consider the claim of petitioner
afresh keeping in mind his re-engagement on 05.09.2008.
Respondents, pursuant to order passed in writ appeal, considered
the claim and rejected the same on 04.03.2020 stating that he was
disengaged from services vide order dated 14.01.2000, he was re-
employed on 05.09.2008, there was break in service of more than
one month, and hence he is not eligible for regularization in
services in terms of Clause 2(iii) of the Circular dated 05.03.2008.
6. In the contempt petition, the Court is required to see whether there
is any willful and deliberate disobedience on the part of
Respondents-contemnor of the direction issued by the Court, and
there is substantial compliance of the direction issued by this Court
or not. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bihar State Government
Secondary School Teachers' Association vs Ashok Kumar Singh & Ors.,
reported in 2014 (7) SCC 416 has held that "in contempt
proceedings, the Court is supposed to adopt cautionary approach
which would mean that if there is a substantial compliance of the
directions given in the judgment, Court is not supposed to go into
the nitty gritty of the various measures taken by the Respondents. It
is also correct that only if there is willful and contumacious
disobedience of the orders, that the Court would take cognizance.
Even when there are two equally consistent possibilities open to the
Court, case of contempt is not made out." In the case at hand also
as per direction issued by this Court, the Respondents have
considered the claim of petitioner and taking note of the Circular
issued by the State Government on 05.03.2008 found the petitioner
to be in-eligible for regularization.
7. In view of the aforementioned facts of the case, we do not find that
there is any willful and deliberate disobedience of the order/
direction issued by this Court on the part of Respondents.
8. For the foregoing reasons, contempt petition is dismissed and
Respondents are discharged of contempt notice.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) (Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge Judge
P.a.w.a.n.
