Shyam Lal vs . Raj Kumar Pruthi
2023 Latest Caselaw 17932 HP

Shyam Lal vs. Raj Kumar Pruthi

.

COPC No. 352 of 2023

10.11.2023 Present: Mr.Devender Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Susheel Gautam, Advocate, for the respondent.

Vide judgment dated 26.07.2022 passed in CWPOA

No.5986 of 2019, titled as Shanti Devi vs. Himachal Urban

Development Authority & another and connected matter,

respondents were directed as under:-

"11. Consequently, in view of the above, all these petitions are allowed and respondents are directed to confer work charge status to the petitioners from the due date i.e. from the date petitioners completed eight

years service with 240 days in each calendar year and thereafter, their services be regularized in terms of policy framed by the government from time to time.

Since learned counsel for the petitioners have already made statement before the Division Bench of this Court

at the time of passing of the judgment dated 22.5.2011 that in case petitioner are regularized w.e.f. 1.1.2007, they will not claim any benefit prior to 1.1.2007,

petitioners are held entitled to consequential benefits on account of their being conferred work charge status and regularization w.e.f. 1.1.2007. In the aforesaid terms, present petitions are disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any."

Compliance affidavit dated 26.10.2023 has been filed

by the respondents. Alongwith compliance affidavit, office order

dated 31.07.2023 has also been placed on record. At the bottom of

this office order, C.E.O.-cum-Secretary, i.e. respondent has

restricted the back wages and arrears three years prior to filing of

the petition by referring judgment passed by the Supreme Court in

Civil Appeal No.3197 of 1991, titled as Jai Dev Gupta vs. State of

H.P.

Order of the Court passed in CWPOA No. 5986 of 2019,

.

is more than clear, stating therein that petitioners are entitled for

consequential benefits on account of their being conferred work

charge status and regularization w.e.f. 01.01.2007 and there is no

order to restrict the claim of the arrears of the petitioner for three

years prior to filing of the petition.

Judgment in Jai Dev Gupta's case was not judgment in

rem and the same cannot be imported by the respondent to tinker

with the direction issued by the Court. Such office order passed by

the respondent is in defiance of direction passed by the Court

amounting to interference in administration of justice and,

therefore, respondent is in contempt. Hence respondent is directed

to show cause with explanation that why he should not be punished

for committing contempt by passing an order on next date of

hearing.

List on 01.12.2023.

(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge

November 10, 2023 (Purohit)

.