Roshan Lal vs R.D. Dhiman and Another

Sureshwar Thakur, J.—The contemnors in the present petition are alleged to have willfully disobeyed the orders of this Court rendered in Civil Writ Petition No. 4046 of 2011. An extraction of the operative part, thereof, is essential, as a decision, on the controversy, is wholly unveiled upon it, which is as under:-

5....The only point for consideration would be as to whether the petitioner herein would be entitled to pension or not. I have also considered the orders which have been passed by the Director of Industries which I do not find to be in consonance with the order of permanent absorption Annexure P-5. In fact what that order states under the 3rd condition appended supra is that the benefit of past services would be considered for the purposes of grant of pay protection and pension etc. No attention has been made to this aspect by the Director of Industries.

In these circumstances, Annexure P-14 is quashed and set aside with this direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner in consonance with clause-3 of Annexure P-5, within a period of one month from the date when the copy of this order is produced before him. Needless to say that the consideration will be on the basis of the established legal position. While considering this, the 1st respondent will also take into consideration the recommendations of the Departmental Absorption Committee for the purposes of absorption of Class-IV employees, these recommendations obviously would be detailed recommendations. Before parting, I may note that it pains me to send the case for reconsideration again as the petitioner has been fighting tooth and nail since the last more than six years. Petition disposed of. No order as to costs. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.

The counsel for the petitioner contends that a reading of the operative portion of the order which has been purportedly disobeyed by the contemnors unravels, that Annexure P-14 (as existing on the writ file) was quashed. Besides, there was a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner in consonance with clause-3, of, Annexure P-5, within, a, period of one month. However, the respondents have not proceeded to afford any benefit of pension, to, the petitioner even when, the petitioner has begotten compliance with Clause 3 of Annexure P-5, in as much as, the petitioner has deposited with the District Treasury the amount falling to his share of subscription, to the General Provident Fund.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contemnors contends, that, the petitioner was in service with General Industries Corporation Ltd., as manifest from Annexures P-1 and P-2 (as existing on the writ file). The learned Deputy Advocate General, hence, with full vigour canvassed, that the petitioner being in the employment of the General Industries Corporation, to whose employees pensionary benefits are not available, hence, in face thereof, his having to be absorbed on the permanent establishment of the department of Industries only on 11th June, 2004, as is evident from Annexure P-5. Consequently, as a corollary, then in the face of its existence and issuance of Annexure E, a perusal whereof divulges that there, is, a bar against grant of pensionary benefits to those employees appointed in the service of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, after 15th May, 2003. As a result, it is urged before this Court that given the date of actual absorption of the petitioner, in the permanent cadre of the State of Himachal Pradesh, in as much, as, his coming to be permanently appointed in the Directorate of Industries, in, the year 2004, hence, after coming into force of the Annexure E, aforesaid, as such, there is a bar to pensionary benefits being payable and admissible to him, de hors compliance by him of the prescription in Clause 3 of Annexure P-5.

It is apparent that the operative part of the judgment of this Court which is purportedly disobeyed is not couched in a phraseology so as to be construable to be mandamus to the respondents or a peremptory mandate in which events the respondent was under an obligation to afford the benefit of pensionary benefits. Rather, the operative part, of, the orders rendered by this Court purportedly disobeyed, are, in the nature of a direction, to, the respondent, to, reconsider the case of the petitioner for pensionary benefits. With the respondents having re-examined and reconsidered the case of the petitioner for grant for pensionary benefits to him and in the face of Annexure E barring the grant of pensionary benefits to the employees who come to be absorbed or appointed the Government of Himachal Pradesh after 15.5.2003 as the petitioner was, hence, declining to afford pensionary benefits, cannot, constitute any willful disobedience of the orders of the Court. Moreover, the said annexure also effaces the legal effect, if any of the petitioner, having meted purported compliance of Clause-3 of Annexure P-5. In view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed and the contemnors are discharged. No costs.