High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 03 JH CK 0171

Arbind Kumar vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 12 March 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Contempt Case (Civil) No. 181 of 2010

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 344 words

D. N. Patel

1.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the order passed by this Court dated 19th November, 2009 in W.P. (S) No.6507 of 2005 has not

been complied with. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that

following was the direction given in paragraph 8 of the order passed by this Court dated 19th November, 2009 in W.P. (S) No.6507 of 2005: -

In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I dispose of this writ application with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to re-

consider the petitioner''s claim on the basis of the records pertaining to the Census Department and after confirming as to whether the petitioner

was also employed in the Census Department and is one of the retrenched employees and thereafter upon such confirmation, pass appropriate

orders for absorption of the petitioner in a vacant post as and when available in the appropriate department under his administrative control. This

exercise must be initiated and concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order.

Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondent State.

2.

Looking to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4 dated 30th November, 2010 especially Annexures-B and C, it appears that the

respondents have complied with the aforesaid direction given in paragraph 8 of the order passed in the writ application. These orders are dated

20th February, 2010 which is passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and dated 21st October, 2010 passed by the Special Secretary of the

State of Jharkhand. In view of these two orders and also looking to the fact that these orders have been accepted by the petitioner as these orders

have not been challenged by the petitioner by way of any proceeding in any Court. In view of these facts, there is no willful disobedience of the

order passed by this Court. This Contempt application is hereby dismissed.