Budhi Devi vs Sita Ram And Another

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this Contempt Petition, the petitioner alleges willful disobedience of the directions which stood passed by the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal in T.A. No. 3511 of 2015, titled as Budhi Devi Vs. Sate of Himachal Pradesh and others on 8th August, 2016. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Tribunal demonstrates that the case stood disposed of by the learned Tribunal in the following terms:

"...3. The applicant claims the benefit of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No.6510 of 2013, Girdhari Lal Versus State of H.P. & others, decided on 10.09.2013. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the said judgment has become final and implemented also.

If that is so, the present original application is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant also strictly in view of the principles laid down in the judgment cited hereinabove, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order as well as the judgment referred to above by the applicant, before the respondents/competent authority."

Purported non­compliance of this order resulted in filing of the present contempt petition.

Respondents have filed reply to the petition and relevant portion of the same is being quoted hereinbelow:

"It is pertinent to mention here that applicant despite issuing clear cut direction by this Hon'ble Tribunal to consider her case strictly in view of the principles laid down in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. in CWP No. 6510 of 2013, Girdhari Lal Versus State of H.P. and others decided on 10.09.2013 has intentionally cited another TA No. 5593 of 2015, titled as Sumnu Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others in this para and sought the claim whatsoever given in another TA No. 5593 of 2015 titled as Sumnu Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others instead of the case of Girdhari Lal vide which the case of the applicant was disposed of by this Hon'ble Tribunal vide judgment dated 8.8.2016. However, the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. in CWP No. 6510 of 2013, Girdhari Lal Versus State of H.P. & others decided on 10.09.2013 has not yet been implemented by the Excise & Taxation Department in which Girdhari Lal is serving. The detailed facts qua the present status of CWP No. 6510 of 2013, titled as Girdhari Lal Vs. State of H.P. and others has been obtained from the Excise & Taxation Department H.P. Shimla vide letter dated 19.5.2018, which is annexed herewith as (Annexure R­1). As per the information incorporated in the letter ibid, it was found that the respondent No. 2 i.e., Excise & Taxation Commissioner vide order dated 4.8.2014 (Annexure R­2) has initially rejected the case of Shri Girdhari Lal for conferment of daily wage status w.e.f 2.4.1998. However, Shri Girdhari Lal filed OA No. 1890/2015 in the Hon'ble Tribunal with similar prayer as was made in CWP No. 6510/2013 and also challenged order dated 4.8.2014 (Annexure R­2) passed by respondent No. 2 i.e., Excise & Taxation Commissioner. The Hon'ble Tribunal vide judgment dated 29.10.2015 disposed of the OA with a direction to the respondent No. 2, i.e., Excise & Taxation Commissioner to issue appropriate orders of accordingly daily wage status to the petitioner with effect from 1st April, 1998 and work charge status after completion of eight years service i.e., with effect from 1st April, 2006 with all consequential benefits including regularization. Since the direction given by the Hon'ble Tribunal vide the aforesaid judgment dated 29.10.2015 is against the policy of 2004 in view of the submissions made hereinabove, the State i.e., (Excise and Taxation Department) filed the Civil Wit Petition No. 248 of 2017 in the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 22.2.2017 was pleased to stay the operation of impugned judgment dated 29.10.2015 (Annexure R­3). The matter is still pending adjudication before the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. Thus it is incorrect to aver that the respondent department has discriminated the applicant and adopted pick and chose method for giving similar treatment to her. Rather the case of Gridhari Lal has not yet been implemented and as such on receipt of information from the Excise and Taxation Department the case of the applicant has been considered and decided by passing a speaking order dated 25.06.2018 (Annexure R­4).

Having perused the response which has been filed to the contempt petition, this Court is satisfied that there is no willful disobedience of the order passed by the learned Tribunal, as alleged and accordingly contempt proceedings are dropped. Notices discharged.