Raj Kumari & Others vs R.D. Dhiman

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Despite publication of the case alongwith name of learned counsel for the petitioner in the cause list and circulation thereof, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

This petition has been filed for violation of order dated 22.09.2017, passed by erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in T.A. No.2642 of 2015, titled as Raj Kumari and others vs. The State of H.P. & others, whereby the Department was directed to extend benefit of judgment dated 28.05.2014, passed by this Court in CWP No.1102 of 2011, titled as Sanjay & others vs. State of H.P. & others and connected matters, subject to the verification that petitioners are similarly situate to the petitioners in CWP No.1102 of 2011.

Alongwith reply to this petition, a copy of order dated 30.07.2018, passed by the Director of Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh, has been placed on record, wherein it has been concluded that on comparison of the present petitioners with petitioners of CWP No.1102 of 2011, it revealed that petitioners in that CWP No.1102 of 2011 of Health Department, were engaged on contractual basis on fixed consideration. Whereas, petitioners, in instant case, were allotted work on contractual basis subject to availability of work and funds from time to time by calling quotations from the interested parties and being lowest one in the comparative list of quotations and, therefore, it has been observed that case of the petitioners, in the instant petition, is entirely different to the petitioners in CWP No.1102 of 2011 of Health Department and, thus, claim of the petitioners has been rejected.

The similarity of the petitioners herein, alongwith petitioners of CWP No.1102 of 2011, was not adjudicated in T.A. No.2642 of 2015 and now, rightly or wrongly, claim of the petitioners has been rejected by the competent authority, by observing that their case is not similar to that of petitioners in CWP No.1102 of 2011. Therefore, nothing survives to be adjudicated and petitioners have a right to get the issue adjudicated in the Court, if so desired, in appropriate proceedings.

The erstwhile Tribunal had directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners within three months, after production of certified copy of the order. Decision has been taken on 30.07.2018 and there is some delay in deciding the claim of the petitioners. In reply, respondent has tendered unconditional, unqualified and sincere apology for any act on his part, which may be construed as contempt.

Considering entire facts and circumstances and accepting apology tendered on behalf of the respondent, present contempt petition is closed and disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate comprehensive petition for redressal of their grievances, if any, survive. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.