Ravindra Kumar vs Sri Iftakhrudeen Khan and Others

V.K. Shukla, J.—Petitioner had filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36862 of 1994 (Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors.). This Court on 13.10.2008 disposed of writ petition with following direction which is being quoted below:

Heard Sri B.P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel.

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. This petition, is therefore, finally decided with the consent of the parties counsel.

The petitioners were appointed on the post of Enumerators on 20.07.1989. They admittedly worked for a period more than 240 days. The services of the petitioners have been dispensed with.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the present case is clearly covered by the decision of this Court dated 11.11.1992 in writ petition No. 7379 of 1990, "Pradeep Kumar Bajpai and Ors. v. Commissioner/Director of Industries and Ors." it was pointed out that, special appeal against the said judgment was carried to the Supreme Court which was dismissed. It was also pointed out that the aforesaid decision was followed in another writ petition No. 25613 of 1990, "Mohd. Arshad Khan v. State of U.P. and Ors.", decided on 21.1.1994 by this Court.

The learned Standing Counsel pointed out that the appointment of the petitioners was on consolidated salary of Rs. 1200/- for a fixed period of only 8 months. Consequently, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. The learned Standing Counsel also placed reliance on the decision dated 19.4.1994 made by the Hon''ble S.R. Singh, J. in writ petition No. Nil of 1994, "Anwar Ali and Anr. v. The Commissioner/ Director of Industries Udyog Bhawan, Kanpur and Ors.

I have perused the said judgment and find that Hon''ble S.R. Singh, J. had also followed the decision made by Hon''ble Justice N.K. Ganguli in writ petition No. 25613 of 1990.

Almost identical question of law and facts were raised in the earlier writ petitions and the present case is clearly covered by the decisions referred to above. The writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that the petitioners shall be reinstated on the post of Enumerators with full back wages. The matter of regularisation of the petitioners in service is left open for being decided by the department according to law."

Against the said order in question special appeal No. 167 of 2002 (State of U.P. and Anr. v. Ravindra Kumar and Anr.) has been preferred and this Court passed following order, which is being quoted below:

We have heard Shri Ran Vijay Singh, Shri Sabhajit Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Shri H.M. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondents.

Several questions have been raised in the present Special Appeal. We are of the view that it is not necessary to go into all these questions at this stage as in view of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel that there is no post of Enumerator at present and the Enumerators are appointed under the time bound scheme/ project, which has come to an end. We, however, observe and feel that in the event the posts of Enumerators are created and they are appointed, the respondent-writ petitioners shall also be at liberty to apply and in that event, their experience of working as Enumerators shall be taken into account while making appointment by the authorities concerned. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent indicated above.

With the above observations, this Special Appeal stands disposed of finally.

At this stage present contempt application has been filed contending therein that reinstatement of petitioner on the post of Enumerator with full back wages has been affirmed in Special Appeal as such respondents are duty bound to ensure back wages and take applicant on duty. As said exercise is not being undertaken as such there is deliberate and wilful defiance on the part of the authorities concerned in not complying with the order.

Present contempt application appears to have been filed is an result of misconception in the mind of petitioners-applicant. Writ petition in question has been finally disposed of with a direction that petitioner shall be reinstated on the post of Enumerator with full back wages and matter for regularization of the petitioner in service is left open for being decided by the Department in accordance with law. Appellate Court took into account that there is no post of Enumerator at present and the Enumerators are appointed under the time bound scheme/project which has come to an end. Observations were made that in the event the posts of Enumerators are created and they are appointed, petitioners shall also be at liberty to apply and in that event, their experience of working as enumerators shall be taken into account while making appointment by the authorities concerned. Special Appeal Bench order is clear of the fact that till date no post of Enumerator has been created. Once post of Enumerator was there then the question of reinstatement and back wages, by no stretch of imagination could have been accorded as appointment had been made under the time bound scheme/project. Once this is factual scenario and keeping in view the real spirit of the order passed by Special Appeal Bench, it cannot be said in the facts of the case that there is any deliberate and wilful defiance of the order passed by this Court, prompting the Court to initiate contempt proceedings.

Consequently, present contempt application lacks substance and same is dismissed, accordingly.