Anand Kumar Pandey and Another vs Sri Ram Charan Gautam and Others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—As both the instant contempt petitions arise from the judgment and order dated 1.9.2005 passed in a bunch of writ petitions, they are being taken together for common orders.

Brief facts of the petitioners'' case are that the petitioners were initially engaged in the Corporation in the year 1982 and 1983 either on the post of Scaler or Field Assistants, as labourers on Daily Labour basis, after calling their names from the Employment Exchange. Similar procedure was adopted for Group ''D'' employees.

It has been submitted that the persons, who were appointed as Daily Labourers will be placed on the pay bills on completion of two years'' service. However, when they were not placed on pay bills, they were obliged to file writ petitions. An interim order was passed and in compliance of the interim order, the petitioners of the said petitions were placed on the pay bills and it was specifically provided that the said order will be subject to further order passed in the writ petition.

It has further been alleged that without seeking any modification of the order passed on the said writ petitions, they were again reverted to Daily Labourers. Being aggrieved, Writ Petition Nos. 537, 538, 852, 899 and 1897 - all of 1993 (SS) were filed. The High Court intervened and directed the opposite parties to retain the petitioners in service and pay them the same salary regularly which they were getting before the orders so passed.

In the meantime, a bunch of writ petition was decided by this Court providing therein for placing the daily labourers on regular pay bills, but in spite of that judgment, persons were not appointed. In the year 1994, a tentative seniority list was prepared on 14.11.1994 in which the grievance was that the placement of some persons is not in accordance with law and order of their reversion on daily wage basis suffers from irregularity. The said action was challenged by the aggrieved persons and in the said proceedings, it was provided that if the juniors to the petitioners were allowed to continue, the petitioners are also entitled as they are serving the Corporation for the last 12 years, but in spite of the aforesaid directions, names of certain employees had been included in the list of surplus employees and accordingly retrenchment orders were issued.

Being aggrieved by the said orders of retrenchment, the writ petitions were filed inter alia on the ground that the order of retrenchment is in violation of provisions of section 25-P in the year 1995 of Industrial Disputes Act as well as the guidelines issued by the Managing Director, contained in Circular dated 19.11.1992. The bunch of writ petitions was allowed by this Court by means of the order dated 1.9.2005. The operative portion of the order dated 1.9.2005 is as under:-

Accordingly, all the writ petitions of the instant bunch of cases are allowed and the Termination Orders of the petitioners of all the petitioners are quashed. A Writ of Certiorari is issued to this effect. Further, a Writ of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to reinstate and allow all the petitioners to continue in service and regularize them in a phased manner in view of the directions given earlier in this Court''s Judgment dated 12th July, 1994. However, since a long lapse of time has intervened in between, they would not be entitled to the back wages but the Forest Corporation and the Government shall make their best endeavour to absorb them on permanent basis as early as possible. All the petitioners shall be entitled to get costs of the entire litigation from the Forest Corporation.

As the said orders were not complied with, the instant contempt proceedings, as stated here-in-above, were initiated.

On perusal of the judgment and order passed by this Court, it reveals that the specific case of the petitioners is that in the seniority list, which was prepared in the year 1994, in respect of different categories of employees, juniors to them have been retained, whereas persons appointed prior to them were disengaged or reverted as daily labourers from the list of pay bills. The names of certain persons were also mentioned in the judgment who were juniors, but have been retained in the list of pay bill employees.

Notices were issued. In response to the notice, counter-affidavits have been filed by the Principal Secretary and Managing Director of the Corporation, wherein it has been specifically stated that in compliance of the orders passed by this Court, a Scheme has been framed, a copy of which is enclosed as Annexure. No. SCA1 to the short counter affidavit and further, posts have also been sanctioned accordingly. It has also been stated that no junior person to the Petitioner has been engaged.

In spite of repeated queries of the Court, as to whether any junior person to the petitioners has been placed on the pay bill and has been retained, learned Counsel for the applicants fails to give reply, but he submitted that Awadhesh Kumar Singh, Uma Singh, Harihar Prasad, Vishwambhar Singh, Jai Prakash Narain Yadav, Vishwa Vijay Yadav and Dhruv Narain Singh were juniors to Ram Suvat Verma.

Learned Counsel for the opposite parties specifically states that not a single junior person has been retained on the pay bill or their services have been regularized in pursuance of the Scheme of regularization which has been framed in compliance of the orders passed by this Court or the Apex Court. Further, he stated that according to the seniority list, as and when the turn of the petitioners, who have been working as Daily Wage Labours comes, they will also be considered for placing them on the pay bill on regular basis.

The opposite parties filed a Special Appeal against the judgment and order dated 1.9.2005 passed in bunch of writ petitions and the same is receiving the attention of a Division Bench of this Court, which is at the hearing stage. This Court has inclined to defer the proceedings till disposal of Special Appeal, but the learned Counsel for the petitioners insists that the contempt petition may be decided.

As the scheme has been framed and posts has been sanctioned and further the Counsel for the applicant fails to point any name from the seniority list, junior to the applicants who have been ordered to be on the list of pay bill on regular basis, I am of the opinion that the contempt petition is pre-mature.

Accordingly, both contempt petitions are dismissed summarily. Notice issued to the opposite parties is hereby discharged.