Mr. Raju Ranjan @APPELLANT@Hash Director, Maj. Gen. Sunil Chandra VSM Retd

This contempt petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been filed by the petitioner in relation to order dated 15.03.2018 passed by this

Court in S.B.C.W.P. No. 3334/2017.

While deciding the writ petition the following directions were issued:-

“In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed. The order dated 10.03.2017 (Annexure-5) accepting

the resignation of the petitioner from the post of PGT CS by the respondents is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall stand reinstated on the post

of PGT CS forthwith. The petitioner would be entitled to all other consequential benefits, which should be granted to him within a period of six

weeks from the date of this judgment.â€​

In the contempt petition filed on 22.03.2018 it was alleged that the directions issued by this Court, regarding reinstatement and other consequential

benefits, have not been complied with by the respondents.

A memo of compliance report dated 09.08.2018 has been filed by the respondents, inter alia, indicating that by order dated 05.07.2018 the petitioner

was directed to report for duty as Probationer PGT (CS) as per the terms and conditions mentioned in his appointment letter dated 31.03.2015 and that

his services shall be governed by the AWES Rules and Regulations.

Then an order dated 21.07.2018 was passed indicating reinstatement of the petitioner w.e.f. 09.07.2018 and calling upon the petitioner to indicate if

any other dues were pending to enable compliance of the directions issued by this Court. It has further been indicated that on 30.07.2018 an order

has been passed by the respondents indicating that services of the petitioner were not regularized for the reasons indicated in the order.

Whereafter another memo of compliance report dated 13.08.2018 has been filed, inter alia, indicating that the petitioner would be entitled to a sum of

Rs. 4,55,453/- towards consequential benefits in terms of the directions issued by this Court and a photo copy of the cheque, in this regard, was

attached and it was indicated that the respondents were willing to hand it over to the petitioner/counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner filed an application dated 13.08.2018, inter alia, making several assertions/averments, raising grievances and seeking several reliefs in

the said application. It was, inter alia, prayed that it be directed that services of the petitioner stood confirmed, the action of the respondents in

passing the order dated 30.07.2018 indicating non-regularization of services of the petitioner be taken as further act of contempt and that the

respondents be dealt with appropriately.

When this matter came up for hearing before this Court on 14.08.2018, the cheque amounting to Rs. 4,55,453/- was offered to the counsel for the

petitioner by counsel for the respondents, which was declined by the counsel.

Both the learned counsel made submissions in terms of the pleadings.

I have considered the various submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

A perusal of the directions issued by this Court on 15.03.2018, as quoted hereinbefore, would indicate that the order dated 10.03.2017 accepting the

resignation of the petitioner from the post of PGT CS by the respondents was quashed and set aside and it was directed that the petitioner shall stand

reinstated on the post of PGT CS forthwith and would be entitled to other consequential benefits.

It was indicated by learned counsel for the respondents that against the order dated 15.03.2018 the petitioner had approached Division Bench by filing

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 666/2018, which came to be decided on 10.04.2018.Â

The Division Bench by its order dated 10.04.2018, inter alia, observed and directed as under:-

“5. It appears that the appellant intended to urge that a declaration be granted when the respondents cannot treat the petitioner on probation any

longer and his status be declared as a confirmed employee.

Suffice it to state that two distinct cause of action appear to have been merged in one petition, with pleading concerning status as probationer and

confirmed being vague.

We treat the impugned order as one rejecting the first prayer made in the writ petition, meaning thereby in a properly constituted writ petition the

petitioner may plead before the Court that his status as a probationer may be declared to be one as a confirmed employee. 8. The writ appeal is

dismissed.â€​

A perusal of the above observations made by the Division Bench clearly indicates that the Division Bench on perusal of the directions issued by this

Court treated the same as one rejecting the first prayer made regarding treating the status of the petitioner as a confirmed employee and, as such, the

submissions now sought to be made putting a particular interpretation regarding the status of petitioner’s employment to the order dated

15.03.2018 cannot be accepted.

So far as passing of the order dated 30.07.2018 not regularizing the services of the petitioner is concerned, it is again informed by learned counsel for

the respondents that the petitioner has already filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11569/2018 questioning the validity of the order dated 30.07.2018.

In view of the fact that the petitioner has questioned the validity of the order dated 30.07.2018 by filing a separate writ petition, the action of the

respondents cannot be made a subject matter of the present proceedings.

Two directions issued by this Court, pertaining to reinstatement and consequential benefits, apparently stand complied with by issuing order dated

05.07.2018 and offering a cheque of Rs. 4,55,453/- by way of consequential benefits, which has been declined by counsel for the petitioner.

Though the compliance made is delayed, for which, submission has been made that as the respondents had filed appeal against the order dated

15.03.2018 and were awaiting outcome of the said appeal, the same led to the delay and that the respondents had no intention to violate the directions

issued by this Court.

In view of the above fact situation, wherein, in substance the directions issued by this Court by order dated 15.03.2018 stand complied with, no case

for further proceeding against the respondents is made out. Notices issued are discharged. The contempt petition is dismissed.

The petitioner would be free to receive the cheque from the respondents within a period of one week, without prejudice to the contentions raised, if so

advised.