Rakesh Sharma And Others vs Anil Khachi And Others

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of instant contempt petition filed under Art. 215 of the Constitution of India, read with Ss. 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,

prayer has been made on behalf of petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for having willfully and intentionally

disobeyed the directions contained in order dated 26.12.2018 passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 5230 of 2015,

titled Rakesh Sharma and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby learned Tribunal below disposed of the Original Application

having been filed by the petitioners, reserving them liberty to file detailed representation supported by documents, within 15 days from the date of

passing of the order with further direction to the respondents to consider and decide the same in accordance with rules, law and in light of judgments

dated 29.8.2014 and 7.4.2018 rendered by this court in CWP No. 5930 of 2010, titled Chaman Singh vs. State of H.P. & Anr and LPA No. 67 of

2015, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Chaman Singh, on or before 31.3.2019, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the

petitioners. Since no steps, if any, ever came to be taken at the behest of respondents towards implementation of aforesaid directions contained in

order alleged to have been violated, petitioners have approached this court in the instant proceedings.

Perusal of the documents annexed with the contempt petition reveals that pursuant to direction contained in order alleged to have been violated,

respondents passed order dated 3.4.2019 (Annexure C- 2) stating that since judgment in CWP No. 5903 of 2010 titled Chaman Singh vs. State of H.P

& Anr., has not attained finality on account of review petition having been filed by them, matter may be kept in abeyance till the decision of review

petition and after that the same shall be decided on the analogy of Chaman Singh (supra). Since despite repeated communications and legal notice, as

contained in Annexure C-3, respondents failed to take final decision in terms of order dated 26.12.2018 passed by learned Tribunal below in OA No.

5230 of 2015, petitioner filed instant contempt petition.

While filing reply, respondents have placed on record copy of order dated 2.12.2020 passed by them in purported compliance of order dated

26.12.2018 passed by learned Tribunal below in Original Application titled Rakesh Sharma and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others,

whereby respondents, after having considered and decided the representation filed by the petitioners in light of judgment passed by this court in

Chaman Singh (supra), rejected the claim of the petitioners.

Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, while referring to order dated 2.12.2020, vehemently

argued that the respondents, while passing aforesaid order, have made an attempt to hoodwink this court because perusal of the aforesaid order

nowhere suggests that the respondents considered the case of petitioners in light of Chaman Singh (supra), rather, applying altogether a different

analogy, petitioners’ case has been rejected and as such, respondents are liable to be hauled for the contempt of this Court. Mr. Bhushan, while

inviting attention of this court to order dated 3.4.2019(Annexure C-2), passed by respondents, contended that once the respondents have themselves

stated before this court that the representation of petitioners cannot be decided on account of pendency of review petition and after disposal of same,

it shall be decided on the analogy of Chaman Singh (supra), there was otherwise no reason for the respondents to reject the case of petitioners,

especially for the reasons, as are contained in order dated 2.12.2020.

Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, while defending the action of respondents argued that since there was a direction to

consider and decide the representation of the petitioners in light of Chaman Singh (supra) and respondents, after having considered representation in

light of Chaman Singh (supra) have passed a detailed order, it cannot be said that the order alleged to have been violated, has not been implemented in

its letter and spirit.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this court finds that as per directions contained in order

alleged to have been violated, representations, if any, filed by the petitioners were to be considered by the respondents, in light of judgment passed by

this court in Chaman Singh (supra)).

Perusal of order dated 2.12.2020, if read in its entirety, nowhere suggests that respondents while rejecting representation having been filed by

petitioner’s have not considered their case in terms of judgment passed by this court in Chaman Singh (supra), rather, aforesaid judgment clearly

reveals that respondents, while applying ratio laid down in Chaman Singh (supra), have rejected the case of the petitioners. Since there was a positive

direction to consider and decide representation of petitioner in light of Chaman Singh(supra), and such representation has been duly considered and

decided by respondents, in terms of aforesaid judgment in Chaman Singh (supra), no action of the respondents can be said to be contumacious. Being

aggrieved with order dated 2.12.2020, petitioners can always file substantive writ petition in the appropriate court of law.

True it is that vide order dated 3.4.2019 (Annexure C-2), respondents had ordered to keep the matter in abeyance on account of pendency of

review petition, but it was also observed in the order that once review petition is decided by this Court, matter shall be decided on the analogy of

Chaman Singh (supra).

Mr. Bhushan, learned senior counsel representing petitioners argued that once the respondents had undertaken before this court that as and when

review petition is decided, case of petitioners shall be decided on the basis of Chaman Singh(supra) and as such, now they cannot be permitted to take

a different stance, whereby they have now while wrongly interpreting the judgment in Chaman Singh (supra), have rejected the representation of the

petitioners.

Having perused order dated 3.4.2019, this court finds that the Additional Chief Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh,

ordered to keep the matter in abeyance till disposal of review petition but carefully stated in the order that after disposal of review petition, matter shall

be decided on the analogy of Chaman Singh (supra), order alleged to have been violated, stands duly complied with.

Since the respondents in their wisdom applying analogy of Chaman Singh(supra) have rejected the case of petitioner on the ground that they have

wrongly applied the judgment passed by this court in Chaman Singh(supra).

Consequently in view of above, this court finds no act of the respondents to be contumacious and there is no reason to keep the present

proceedings alive and same are accordingly closed. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file

appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law.