Rama Devi vs Mohan Chandra Joshi

Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J

The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (SS) No. 1551 of 2014 has passed an order on 25.04.2017 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization against any available vacancy or by creating a supernumerary post.

Against such order, the State of Uttarakhand had preferred a Special Appeal No. 458 of 2021 before this Court, which was dismissed by this Court on 21.02.2022 whereby delay of 1489 days in preferring the intra court appeal has not been condoned and consequently, the appeal was not entertained against such order. Against such order, the State of Uttarakhand had preferred a Special Leave to Appeal No. 6698 of 2022 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.04.2022 observed that it have reservations about the order of the High Court, but keeping in view the fact that the beneficiary is only one individual Safaikarmachari, we do not wish to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. However, the impugned order shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case.

At present, the petitioner is seeking award of punishment to the respondent. The compliance affidavit filed by the respondent reveals that order was passed against the respondent – Executive Engineer, Construction Division, Public Works Department, Ranikhet, District – Almora, however, he rejected the representation of the petitioner. He further submits that he does not have jurisdiction or authority to create any post, be it regular or supernumerary. Subsequently, he referred matter to the Engineer-in-Chief/ HOD, Legal Cell, PWD, Dehradun, vide letter dated 11.07.2017. As per the legal opinion, the regularisation of a person having worked for a long time on part time basis is not proper. It was further directed to the respondent to take final decision and issue order. Thereafter, he vide letter dated 15.07.2017 had written to the Superintending Engineer, Circle – I, Public Works Department, Almora for issuance of office order and the Superintending Engineer vide letter dated 18.07.2017 directed the deponent to issue order and accordingly, he has issued a detailed order dated 21.07.2017, which was duly received by the petitioner on 21.07.2017 itself. The petitioner has concealed the factum of order dated 21.07.2017 having been passed by the answering respondent. The petitioner is guilty of concealment of material fact.

In view of the above facts, I am not inclined to pass any order against the respondent, particularly, in view of the fact that petitioner is guilty of suppressing the material fact in the contempt petition. Secondly, as apparent from the record, the respondent did not have jurisdiction to create supernumerary post and the order passed by this Court is not executable in that sense. Thirdly, the order, which has been violated, as pleaded in the contempt petition was passed without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondent to show cause or to file counter affidavit. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed its reservations about the same order, treating the same as a not precedent.

This Court is of opinion that there is no wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. Contempt proceedings are discharged.