Raghu Nath Singh vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

This is one of the best example of anarchy and a very pathetic State of Affairs at the hands of the respondents which has been witnessed by this

Court for last couple of days and the manner in which the respondent-Irrigation Department treats its employees who have ultimately succeeded in the

litigation up to the Apex Court, by keeping their destiny at lurk and by forcing them to litigate.

The factual backdrop as involved in this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Part Time Pump Operator way back in 1983.

Ultimately, for the purposes of claiming a benefit of regularization, he filed a C.V. Case No.504 of 1990, which was not welcomed by the respondents

and ultimately his services were dispensed with by way of an order dated 13.08.1990. Since this order was in non compliance of the provisions

contained under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he sought for a reference of dispute under Section 4-K. However, the

reference was registered being Adjudication Case No.37 of 1995, was decided against him by an award rendered by the Labour Court on 03.06.1998.

However, what is relevant to point out is that even in the award it was recorded, that the petitioner having worked for 240 days and there was a non

compliance of Section 6-E and 6-N and specific finding has been recorded in it. But having failed before Labour Court by award dated 03.6.1998, the

petitioner challenged the award in writ petition before Allahabad High Court being Writ Petition No. 26742 of 1998, this writ petition was ultimately

transferred to this Court under Section 35 of the Re-organization Act and was renumbered as Writ Petition No.1037 (M/S) of 2002. This writ petition

ultimately after the exchange of pleadings came up for consideration before the Coordinate Bench of this Court and by the judgment dated 28.07.2005,

the learned Single Judge had passed the following order and made the following observations:-

“Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 30.08.1997 as well as the order of removal dated 13.10.1990 are set aside.

The petitioner shall be reinstated in service, however, they shall not be paid any back wagesâ€​.

The respondents to avoid compliance of the judgment dated 28.07.2005 had preferred a belated Review Petition being Review Application No.26 of

2007 before this Court which was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on the ground of delay and laches by the judgment dated 25.05.2006.

Being aggrieved against the two orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 28.07.2005 and 21.05.2006, the record reveals that the

respondent no.2 i.e. Chief Engineer, had preferred an SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which after the grant of leave was registered as Civil

Appeal no.6501 of 2009. Ultimately, the Civil Appeal came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the same was dismissed on

11.05.2016 and the Hon’ble Apex Court has passed the following order: “Four weeks’ time is granted as last opportunity for taking steps

for service on respondent No.1, failing which the appeal will stand dismissed without reference to the Court.â€​

No steps were taken and appeal filed by Respondent No.2 before the Apex Court was dismissed as no steps were taken by Respondent No.2

before the Apex Court to service notice. Despite of having lost from the two courts i.e. the High Courts and the Apex Court, the petitioner was not

reinstated in service, as a consequence of the judgment passed by this Court on 28.07.2005, rather he was tossed from one table to another for one

reason or another. The petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition praying for that because of the setting aside the termination order

dated 13.08.1990 and looking to the findings which has been recorded in the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, while ceased with the

award, he may be treated to have been in continuous service with the respondents, till he attained the age of superannuation and accordingly his post

retiral benefits is to be settled treating him to be in continuous in service with the prayer as made therein the petition, he has filed the present writ

petition. This writ petition was taken up on 14.06.2018, wherein after noting the facts that the direction was issued to the respondents to put in

appearance in person for their deliberate act of not complying with the judgment passed by this Court which ultimately stood affirmed by the

Hon’ble Apex Court.

This Court after considering the entire facts vide its order dated 14.06.2018, had directed the respondents to appear in person on 18.06.2013. On

18.06.2013, the Executive Engineer T.S. Gosain has put in appearance. However, he was neither prepared nor was up to date with the particulars to

render any assistant to the Court nor he was in a position to disclose his stand as appointing authorities as to why the order passed by this Court was

not complied with. Hence this writ petition was directed to be posted on 19.06.2018, calling upon the Chief Engineer to appear in person and to show

cause as to why the order was not complied with. Today, the Chief Engineer as well as the Executive Engineer are present in person. The Executive

Engineer on 18.06.2018 through their counsel Mr. C.S. Rawat, Additional C.S.C. had never taken stand with regard to the implications of the interim

order passed by the Apex Court which remain in operation from 13.11.2006 to 11.05.2016. His simple case was that he was not holding the post at the

relevant time. Neither the Executive Engineer nor the Additional C.S.C. had taken any shelter to the office memo dated 07.12.2005, purportedly

raising some dispute pertaining to the description of the age of the petitioner has given in the writ petition. Altogether, a distinct stand has been taken

by the officers concerned who are present in person. Besides this, the stand also at this stage is not relevant.

This Court is not at all satisfied with the reason assigned by the Chief Engineer and probable action ought to be taken against him as well as the

Executive Engineer for disobeying the judgment rendered by this Court on merit as well as by Hon’ble Apex Court rather not expected

particularly when the Hon’ble Apex Court had dismissed the SLP of the respondents herein, at least, it was expected that the State Counsel

should not have taken a stand that there operated an interim order which was creating impediment in reinstating the petitioner in compliance of the

judgment passed by this Court on 28.07.2005 rendered in Writ Petition No.1032 of 2002, because under the principle of merger as soon as their SLP

stood dismissed on 11.05.2016. The resultant effect would be that the order of termination which has been declared to be void by this Court by the

judgment dated 28.07.2005, revived back and the petitioner would acquire the same status as it was prevailing on the date of termination of services

on 13.10.1990 as if there existed no order of termination and the consequence thereto, respondents were bound to follow the same and the

respondents were bound to reinstate the petitioner into the services, as a consequence of the judgment dated 28.07.2005, having not done so, it was a

deliberate act and would amount to be an abuse of process of law and an intentional contempt.

In view of the above and it could be reasonably inferred that the petitioner has almost exhausted his life in litigating against the adamant respondents

who under one pretext or the other, were fishing out reasons for not complying with the order of this Court.

In that view of the matter, this Court while taking suo motu cognizance issued contempt notice to the Chief Engineer and the Appointing Authority

of the petitioner Executive Engineer to explain their conduct within a period of one week from today as to why the action under the Contempt of Court

Act be taken against them for not complying the orders passed by this Court on 28.07.2005 as well as by the Hon’ble Apex court on 11.05.2016

or it is open for them to comply the order passed by this Court and pass an order of reinstatement and if the petitioner has retired, grant him the

benefits from the date of judgment i.e. 28.07.2005 till the date of superannuation.

Put up this matter after four weeks, to enable the respondents to comply the directions given above and report back thereafter to this Court, for

further orders.