Himachal Pradesh High Court
Anokhi Ram vs Sandeep Bhatnagar & Anr on 2 November, 2023
Bench: Ranjan Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
COPC No.1162 of 2020
Decided on: 2nd November, 2023
.
__________________________________________________________
Anokhi Ram
....Petitioner
Versus
Sandeep Bhatnagar & Anr.
......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner: Mr. Piyush Verma, Advocate with Mr.
Anuj Bali, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate
General.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)
The petitioner has filed the instant contempt
petition, alleging willful disobedience and disregard to the
orders dated 18.03.2019, Annexure-CP-1, passed in OA No.
1069/2019 (now stands registered as CWPOA No. 6496/
2020) and the operative part of the interim orders passed by
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
the State Administrative Tribunal (now abolished) read as
under:
"In the facts and circumstances, particularly that
the impugned communication dated 14.03.2019,
.
prima facie, appears to have been issued without
putting the applicant to notice, thereby
tantamounting to infringement of the principles of
natural justice, there shall be a direction in the
interim to the respondents to permit him to
continue to work as Driver on the same terms and
conditions as before till further orders.
2. The respondent No. 2-Block Development Officer,
Dharampur has filed the reply to the contempt petition, on
the affidavit sworn on 24th November, 2020. A reference to
Paras 3 & 4 of the reply affidavit reads as under:
"That in reply to these of paras, it is very
humbly submitted that the appointment of a
Driver on regular basis against Ex-
servicemen quota was made on 08.03.2019
and the Driver so appointed joined his
duties on 13.03.2019, whereafter the
services of the petitioner automatically
discontinued as per terms and condition
stipulated in the sanction letter of Director,
Rural Development Department, (Annexure
R-1). The petitioner obtained stay order
dated 18.03.2019 in his OA No. 1069/2019,
(Annexure CP-1) filed with the petition. It is
submitted that at no stretch of time the
order of the Hon'ble Tribunal had been non
complied by the replying respondents
department, rather the petitioner himself
remained willfully absent w.e.f 24.03.2020
i.e. after lockdown announced by the
Government without any intimation. The
petitioner, as a matter of fact, is busy in his
own business i.e. running his own shop in
his name as allotted to him by the
Panchayat Samiti, Dharampur, Solan. The
copy of the rent ledger is herewith as
.
Annexure R-2. Beside this, the petitioner
has obtained the financial assistance under
the PMEGP scheme for self-employment
from Industry Department, the attested
photocopy of the sanction order dated
15.03.2018 (Annexure R-3). In so far as the
demand of the petitioner for paying his
wages/ salary is concerned, the replying
respondent mailed his musterolls to his
outsource-agency i.e. Saraswati Dot Com
Shimla further necessary action as per office
procedure being adopted in his case. It is
submitted that no communication from the
said agency has ever been received by the
replying respondent department. Hence, the
allegation that the replying respondent did
not pay him his wages/ salary is not based
on facts. It is also added here that all the
facts of his case qua wages etc. were brought
into the knowledge of the Higher Authorities
and the said authority suggested the
replying respondent to file CMP (MO) in this
Hon'ble High Court for vacation of stay.
Since the MA in OA No. 1069/ 2019 already
stood filed in the Hon'ble erstwhile Tribunal,
the replying respondent has filed an
application u/s. 151 CPC and Article 226 (A)
of the Constitution of India for early hearing,
which application is pending adjudication
and decision till date. Therefore, the of
allegation intimidation and restraining the
petitioner from entering into the office is not
also based on facts and record. Hence, there
is no violation of the order dated 18.03.2019
on part of the replying respondent".
3. A perusal of the orders dated 18.03.2019
Annexure-CP-1 reveals that the Court has passed the interim
orders directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to
.
continue to work as Driver on the same terms & conditions
as before till further orders. In this background, records
reveal that the petitioner was employed as Driver on out-
source basis. A reference to the reply reveals that though the
interim orders, were passed on 18.03.2019 but, the
respondents have started the process and have filled up
regular post of Driver against Ex-servicemen quota on
08.03.2019 and the fresh appointee has already been
appointed and joined on 13.03.2019 i.e. prior to the passing
of interim orders on 18.03.2019.
4. Mr. Piyush Verma, submits that the
disengagement on 14.03.2019 was arbitrary and without
complying with the Principles of Natural Justice.
5. Be that as it may, since the OA No. 1069 of 2019
in which the interim orders were passed has now been
registered as CWPOA No. 6469 of 2020 Anokhi Ram Vs.
State of HP and Anr. and the same is pending adjudication,
therefore, this Court is of the view that all such contentions
can be raised in the pending CWPOA.
6. Keeping in view the averments made in the reply
.
and the totality of the facts and circumstances as referred to
above, this Court does not find any willful disobedience or
disregard to the interim orders dated 18.03.2019 as referred
to above. Moreover, the conduct of the respondent No.2 is fair
enough, based on rational and logic. In the above
contempt
rpetition to
circumstances, no contempt is made out and the instant
is closed, so also the pending
miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
November 02, 2023
(Sunil)
