Radha Nath Jha and Others vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.—The present contempt petition has been preferred to initiate contempt proceedings against the opposite parties for their willful and deliberate non-compliance of the directions given by this Hon''ble Court passed in W.P. (S) No. 3807 of 2004 vide order dated 22.08.06. The relevant portion is quoted as under:

Consequently, Respondent-Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand has passed the order dated 7th April, 2003 granting benefit to the similarly situated persons. Petitioner''s case is covered by the aforesaid judgments. Learned Counsel appealing for the respondents has also fairly conceded that the direction issued in the aforesaid judgments covered the case of the petitioners.

Let case of the petitioners be considered in the light of the judgments, referred to above and on the analogy of the persons who have been granted benefit vide order dated 7th April, 2003.

The learned Advocate General, who appears on behalf of the alleged contemnor, submits that there was a bonafide mistake in view of the order having been modified. However, all the orders which is being referred to and relied upon for purging the respondents from Contempt are passed much prior to the order impugned dated 22.8.2006 and the same was considered and referred to in the order.

It is relevant to record that C.W.J.C. No. 387/95 was decided on 7th September, 1995. Again C.W.J.C. No. 2176/96 was decided on 3rd April, 1997 whereby the order impugned in the said writ petition rejecting the claim of the writ petitioners was quashed and a direction was issued to consider the writ petitioners as teachers and give them all consequential benefits including promotion. A L.P.A. No. 274/97 was preferred which was also dismissed upholding the order of the learned single judge. The SLP was also dismissed on 22nd July, 2002 and the Respondent-Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand consequently passed the order of compliance on 7th April, 2003 extending the benefit to similarly situated persons and the present writ petition (S) No. 3807 of 2004 from which the present contempt petition has been filed came to be heard on 22.8.2006 which recorded all these facts and directed specifically that the petitioner''s case was also covered by the aforesaid judgment and the benefit in accordance with the order dated 7th April, 2003 should also be granted to the petitioner. It is specifically recorded in the order that the respondent counsel fairly conceded the same.

In the Additional Show-Cause filed by the Respondent-Contemnor a new plea has been taken by referring to the order passed on 22nd August, 2002 that the order was modified by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. However, the fact remains that both the appeals were dismissed as devoid of merit.

In the light of the aforesaid facts, it is stated by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the respondent-contemnor that due to aforesaid reasons the order could not be complied with and it was bonafide and unintentional.

I have considered the submissions as well as the show-cause including the Additional Show-Cause and it is clear that there is a non-compliance of the order and direction issued by this Court on 22.8.2006 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3807 of 2004 and there is a violation of their own concession as well.

The fact remains that all these orders were within their knowledge and had been passed much earlier and they extended the benefit to similarly situated persons vide order issued by Respondent-Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, on 7th April, 2003 which was also subsequent to the order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case and also considering the plea of a bonafide mistake the respondents are directed to comply with the order and their undertaking as recorded by this Court on 22.8.2006 in W.P. (S) No. 3807 of 2004 and extend the benefit in compliance with the order dated 22.08.06 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The respondents are also directed to pay cost of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) to the petitioner.

This contempt petition is accordingly disposed of giving the benefit of doubt to the contemnors.