Uttarakhand High Court
CLCON/91/2019 on 11 January, 2021
CLCON No. 91 of 2019
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate for the
applicant.
Mr. H.M. Raturi, Deputy Advocate
General for the State of Uttarakhand.
The Division Bench had passed the
judgment on 26.09.2018, whereby, the
respondents were directed to comply the
directions contained therein, which was in
two parts:
(1) A letter of appointment was to
be issued to the appellant
therein.
(2) The consequential benefits was
to be given to the appellant
within a period of ten weeks
from the date of the order.
The consequential benefits was
pleaded to have been to be given to the
petitioner within a period of ten weeks from
the date of the order.
The copy of the said order was
pleaded to have been served on the
respondent Chief Education Officer, as well
as the Secretary (Education) by the
petitioner vide his communication dated
16.10.2018.
Ever since the service of the copy of
the order, on the Chief Education Officer,
Dehradun, on 28.11.2018 nothing preceded
further, consequentially, the petitioner had
to file the contempt petition on
28.02.2019; and as usual the courts too
have to resort to the procedural aspect of
issuance of notice on the contempt petition
before taking any action.
This Court cannot be oblivious of the
fact that on the issuance of the notice on
01.03.2019, there is a report of the C.J.M.
that the office of the respondent was
served with the notice of the contempt, as
per the report of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate on 19.03.2019. This Court is
sorry to observe that even after having the
knowledge of the order dated 26.09.2008,
on 19.03.2019, the compliance was not
made, rather the respondents seems to be
awaiting further orders to be passed by this
Court.
In fact, the affidavit, which has been
also filed by the respondent, do not reflect
that any positive inclination was shown by
the respondents to comply the direction of
the court. In fact, it has become an
aptitude of the officers of the Education
Department; that they would not work on
their own, except under the pressures of
the contempt proceedings or until and
unless the court takes an stringent action
against them and that is what has
happened in the instant case also.
When this court has passed an order
on 28.12.2020, directing the respondent
no. 1 to appear in person before the court
for explaining the reasons for non-
compliance and for the purposes of framing
of the charge, in compliance thereto, when
the matter was taken up today, learned
Deputy Advocate General Mr. H.M. Raturi,
as usual, the normal strategy, which he
adopts, while defending contempt, has
placed before this Court an Order No.
15018-83/2020-21 dated 09.01.2021,
wherein, the Chief Education Officer,
Dehradun, is shown to have passed had
produced an order before this Court
contending thereof that in compliance of
the judgment passed by this Court, the
letter of appointment has been issued in
favour of the petitioner on 09.01.2021.
The second part of the direction is still
to be complied with, which is quite
apparent from the Communication No.
31/XXIV-4/2020-03(29)/201 dated
08.01.2021, whereby, the Secretary has
given communication to the office of the
Chief Standing Counsel, that for the
remittance of the benefits of the aforesaid
amount as directed by the judgment, an
appropriate action is being taken.
I am of the considered view that the
mode adopted by the respondent of
portraying to comply the judgment passed
by this Court, is apparently nothing, but a
clever device of misleading the courts in
order to purge the contempt. Because, I
am of the view that compliance means a
complete compliance not partial.
Admittedly, according to their own
communication placed on record today, the
benefits, which was directed to be paid to
the petitioner has not yet been remitted
and even a letter of appointment has been
issued much after the lapse of more than
two years from date of passing of order on
26.09.2018.
In that view of the matter and while
taking a stringent view, this Court is
inclined to frame the charge as against the
respondent nos. 1 and 2 both calling upon
them for showing cause as to why they
should not be charged and be punished
under the provisions of the Contempt of
Courts Act for their sadistic aptitude of not
complying the judgments passed by the
court and when the compliance has been
placed before this Court, in fact, it is not
yet again a complete compliance, but only
partial in nature, which this Court is of the
view that it was intelligible device adopted
by the respondent to purge the contempt.
The reply to be filed within a period of
two weeks.
Put up this contempt petition in the
week commencing 25.01.2021.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
11.01.2021
Pooja
