Rajendra Singh Jagwan & Others vs Om Prakash & Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The petitioners, who were appointed as lecturers against respective subjects, had raised a claim by filing Writ Petition for getting their services regularized. When the same was not being considered by authorities, they had preferred Writ Petitions with a leading Writ Petition No. 484 of 2016 'Pankaj Kumar Sailani vs. State of Uttarakhand & Others'. The issue was also with regards to the grievance agitated by the petitioners against action of the artificial/fictional breaks, which was being given by the respondents so as to decline regularization to the petitioners so that they may not mature their right to be considered after having put in requisite period of service. The Writ Petition ultimately came up for consideration before the Division Bench on 14.06.2018 and the same was allowed with the following directions:

"Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. Impugned orders are quashed and set aside. Impugned orders are quashed to regularize the petitioners as Lecturers by ignoring the artificial/fictional breaks given to them, within a period of ten weeks from today.

Needless to add, the petitioners shall also be entitlted to minimum pay scale being paid to the Lecturers on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'"

The petitioners contend that this order was served upon the respondents but, despite of its service the same was not complied with. Consequently, they preferred the present Contempt Petition on 10. 09.2018. The Division Bench of this Court on 26.10.2018 had issued notice to the respondent calling for a reply for non-compliance of the judgment dated 14.06.2018. The matter remained pending. Ultimately, the reason, which came forward during the course of argument for non-compliance of the judgment dated 14.06.2018 was the SLP bearing No. (C) No(s) 25919-25928/2018 'State of Uttarakhand vs. Pankaj Kumar Sailani & Others' However, later on the said SLP was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.10.2018, by the Hon'ble Apex Court with the liberty to the State to file a Review Petition before this Court seeking review of the judgment dated 14.06.2018.

It has been argued by Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, that in furtherance thereto, the Review Petition has already been filed and that is pending consideration, but that in itself, mere filing of the Review Petition, will not preclude the State from complying the judgment dated 14. 06.2018, as it is still in existence and effective in the eyes of law until and unless the same is set aside by a superior Court, mere pendency of review cannot be a reason for non-compliance. Hence, the notice was issued to respondent no. 1 (Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Technical Education, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun) to show cause as to why the charges may not be framed against him for non compliance of the judgment dated 14.06.2018.

In compliance thereto, Mr. Om Prakash, Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary Technical Education, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun, is present in person. Simultaneously, a compliance affidavits have also been filed by the respondent annexing therewith an order dated 15.12.2018, wherein it is reported that respondents have complied with the judgment and in pursuance of the judgment dated 14.06.2018, the services of the petitioners of the bunch of Writ Petitions had been regularized w.e.f. 20.08.2018. Hence, in fact this Court is of the view that the judgment dated 14.06.2018 stands complied with.

Having said so and while closing the Contempt Petition and discharging the notice issued to the respondent, this Court expresses its anguish on a very serious note as to the manner in which the State Agencies are dealing with the orders passed by this Court by sitting over it and taking action only when a contempt proceeding are being drawn against them. It is trusted that the said message would be conveyed by the Chief Standing Counsel to the Government Agencies to atleast comply the order of the Court within the stipulated time frame so as to save the respondents from embarrassment and from being called to present themselves in person before the Court.

This Contempt Petition is disposed of accordingly.