High CourtsSingle Bench

Gambhir Das vs S.S. Sandhu & Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 21 September 2021 · Citation: (2021) 09 UK CK 0201

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Contempt Petition No. 409 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 368 words

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1.

In this contempt petition, petitioner has complained that the order passed by Writ Court in his favour on 19.11.2018, as modified by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 07.01.2020, has not been complied with.

2.

The order passed by Writ Court on 19.11.2018 is on record as Annexure No. 4, which reveals that WPSS No. 631 of 2018 filed by the petitioner was disposed of with a direction to Divisional Forest Officer, Kalsi to consider petitioner's candidature for the post of Forest Guard in the next selection process and, till such consideration, petitioner's services may not be dispensed with. The said order was modified in Special Appeal No. 955 of 2019 vide judgment dated 07.01.2020 and following order was passed:

"11.Suffice it, in such circumstances, to modify the order under appeal and, instead, direct the respondents to consider the case of the respondent-writ petitioner, a seasonal worker, for appointment to the post of Forest Guard in vacancies, earmarked in favour of seasonal workers, which arose after the end of the 2015 season, (when the respondent-writ petitioner competed three years service), till 27.10.2016 when the 2016 Rules came into force."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, despite the direction issued by this Court, respondents are not considering petitioner's claim for regular appointment. He further submits that petitioner is serving as seasonal employee continuously since the year 2012, therefore, petitioner has sought initiation of proceedings against the respondents under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

4.

Before issuing contempt notices to the respondents, this Court thinks that one more opportunity be given to the respondents, so that they may take necessary steps in terms of judgment of this Court.

5.

In such view of the matter, the contempt petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation to Divisional Forest Officer concerned. If such representation is made within two weeks from today, the concerned Divisional Forest Officer shall look into the matter and take appropriate decision as per direction of Writ Court, as modified in Special Appeal, as early as possible; but, not later than eight weeks' from the date of receipt of representation alongwith certified copy of this order.