Kehar Singh vs Anuradha Thakur

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

This Contempt Petition has been filed for violation of order dated 27.10.2016 passed by erstwhile Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 5453 of 2016, titled Kehar Singh Vs. State of H.P. The said Original Application was disposed of by the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal in terms of judgment dated 14.12.2009, passed in CWP No. 4489 of 2009, titled Ravi Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and others and judgment dated 28.7.2010, passed in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and others and connected matters, rendered by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, with a direction to the respondents Department/competent authority that subject to verification and on finding petitioner to be similarly situated to the petitioners in aforesaid judgments, benefit of said judgments, if the same have attained finality and implemented, shall also be extended to the petitioner along with consequential benefits, if any, as per law, without any discrimination, within three months from the date of production of certified copy of order along with copies of aforesaid judgments, by the petitioner.

Respondent was Principal Secretary IPH to the Government of Himachal Pradesh at the time of filing of the Contempt Petition. She has now been transferred, however, reply has been filed on her behalf, wherein unconditional and unqualified apology has been tendered for any act which may amount disobedience or violation of order passed by the Court. It has also been stated in the reply that vide order dated 31.3.2017, competent authority, i.e. Executive Engineer, IPH has already considered the case of the petitioner and rejected the same on the ground that petitioner is not similarly situated to that of petitioners in Ravi Kumar's case, for the reason that in Ravi Kumar's case, total working days in a year against 240 days were 184 days, whereas in case of petitioner, total working days instead of 240 days are 119 days and there is difference of 65 days between 184 and 119 days.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that difference of few days cannot be a ground for differentiating the petitioner from Ravi Kumar's case.

The Erstwhile Administrative Tribunal had not adjudicated the issue that as to whether petitioner is similarly situated to that of petitioners in Ravi Kumar's case or not.

Rightly or wrongly, as per wisdom of competent authority, in compliance of order passed by erstwhile Administrative Tribunal, case of the petitioner stands considered and rejected and for adjudication of dispute/issue raised on behalf of petitioner, with respect to correctness of the decision, the same is not to be adjudicated in this petition. Appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to file a comprehensive writ petition for adjudication of the aforesaid issue.

So far as delay of few months in deciding the case of the petitioner is concerned, apology tendered on behalf of respondent is accepted and petition is closed and disposed of with liberty to file a fresh comprehensive petition for redressal of his grievances, if advised so, in accordance with law. It is made clear that issue of delay and laches shall not come in the way of petitioner, as petitioner under bonafide belief was pursuing his case in present Contempt Petition. However, comprehensive writ petition, if any, be filed within a reasonable period.