CLCON/36/2019
2021 Latest Caselaw 4819 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                   AT NAINITAL
     ON THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
                        BEFORE:
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


       CONTEMPT PETITION No. 36 of 2019

BETWEEN:

Pramod Kumar.                                     ...Petitioner
     (By Mr. Sachin Kumar Sharma, Advocate, holding brief of
     Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, Advocate)

AND:
Maan Singh Saini & another.                 ...Respondents
     (By Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the respondents)


                       JUDGMENT

Writ Court vide order dated 23.05.2018 had disposed of petitioner's writ petition with a direction to the Competent Authority to decide petitioner's representation by a reasoned order, within ten weeks.

2. Alleging willful disobedience of the said order, this contempt petition was filed.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed, wherein it has been stated that the Competent Authority i.e. Chairman of the Managing Committee of the Co- operative Society concerned is the Competent Authority to take decision in the matter. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Competent Authority has already taken a decision in its meeting held on 20.11.2018.

4. On the last occasion, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that one Mr. Neeraj Kumar Saini, who was similarly placed as the petitioner, was re-instated in service; while, petitioner was denied re-instatement, despite order passed by this Court. Therefore, respondent no. 1 was asked to appear in person before this Court.

5. Today, respondent no. 1 appeared before this Court and submitted that Mr. Neeraj Kumar Saini was a permanent employee, who was dismissed from service on account of conviction by a Criminal Court and was, subsequently, re-instated in service on account of his acquittal by the Appellate Court. Thus, he submits that petitioner's case is entirely different from that of Mr. Neeraj Kumar Saini, as petitioner was a daily wage employee, who worked for less than a month in a Co-operative Society; while, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Saini was a regular employee, who was re- instated in service on account of his acquittal by the Appellate Court.

6. Having regard to the facts & circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a case of willful disobedience of the order of this Court.

7. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is closed. Contempt notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance, if any.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Arpan