Virendra Kumar Bhatele vs Shri Rajeev Sutlikar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2486 MP

                            1
                HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           CONC.No.2658/2018
   (Virendra Kumar Bhatele Vs. Shri Rajeev Sutlikar & Others)

Gwalior, Dated : 17.06.2021

         Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

         None for the respondent no.1 despite service.

Shri B.P.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents no.2

and 3.

Heard through Video Conferencing.

The contempt petition is being filed alleging non-compliance of

the order dated 31.08.2018 passed in W.P.No.20268/2018 whereby the

order impugned in the writ petition dated 31.07.2018 retiring the

petitioner on completion of 60 years of age was stayed by the Court

wherein he was directed to continue upto 62 years has not been

complied with. It is alleged that the order was communicated to the

respondents on 05.09.2018. Despite of the same, they have not

permitted the petitioner to join the services and continue upto 62 years.

On the contrary, a reply has been filed by the authorities contending

therein a detailed reply has been filed in the writ petition wherein it has

pointed out that the petitioner is not entitled to continue upto 62 years.

It is pointed out that they have already filed an application for vacating

stay in the aforesaid writ petition. But the fact remains that the interim

order passed by the Court is still in operation. The authorities are duty

bound to comply with the order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the Court

right or wrong. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CONC.No.2658/2018 (Virendra Kumar Bhatele Vs. Shri Rajeev Sutlikar & Others)

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prithawi Nath Ram Vs.

State of Jharkhand and Others, 2004 (7) SCC 261 wherein it has

held that the authorities are duty bound to comply with the order

passed by the Court even if the order is wrong. They are having a

remedy to challenge the order before the superior forum or filing a

review asking for recalling of the order, but till the order is in force, the

authorities are duty bound to comply with the order.

In the present case, the authorities are not permitted to the

petitioner to join the services. Despite of the fact that there was an

interim order dated 31.08.2018 in his favour which is clear that ''the

petitioner be permitted to continue the age of superannuation i.e. 62

years.

It is noteworthy mention here that this Court today has heard the

matter W.P.No.20268/2018 finally and has allowed the same and the

petitioner is held entitled to continue upto 62 years. It appears that the

authorities willing and deliberately have not complied with the interim

order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

The authorities could have permitted the petitioner to continue upto 62

years under protest as has been held done by the authorities in large

number of cases with other employees. But they have deliberately not

permitted the petitioner to join the services in compliance of the

interim order passed by this Court. In such circumstances, the Court is

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CONC.No.2658/2018 (Virendra Kumar Bhatele Vs. Shri Rajeev Sutlikar & Others)

not satisfied with the compliance report submitted by the authorities.

Even the respondents no.1 despite service has not been represented by

any of the counsels and has chosen not to attend the court proceedings.

In such circumstances, prior to holding the respondents' guilty

for non-compliance of the order, this Court deems it appropriate to

grant further seven days' time, as a matter of last indulgence, to comply

with the order 31.08.2018 or file the compliance report before the

Court, failing which, all the three authorities are directed to mark their

presence before the Court to explain that why they have not complied

with the order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the Court on the next date

of hearing.

The matter is directed to be listed on 24.06.2021.

A copy of the order be supplied to Shri B.P.S.Chouhan, counsel

for necessary compliance.

                                                        (Vishal Mishra)
AK/-                                                        Judge
       ANAND KUMAR
       2021.06.18
       18:47:04 +05'30'