Shivpujan Dubey vs The State of Bihar, Mr. K.N. Lal and Mr. Hemchandra Sirohi, Commissioner, Irrigation Deptt. Bihar Patna

Shiva Kirti Singh, J.—Heard the parties.

This Court was not satisfied with the stand taken by the opposite parties earlier. Hence, by order dated 13th July, 2011 the concerned Chief Engineer was directed to discharge his responsibility and comply with the order of the writ court dated 20-10-2005. This Court clarified that petitioner''s case had to be considered strictly on the basis of judgment of the writ court and the case law referred therein i.e. Tulsi Singh''s case. The opposite parties were made aware that they should not undermine the judgment of the writ court on account of some later judgments of this Court or other Courts. Pursuant to the order dated 13th July, 2011, the concerned Chief Engineer of Water Resources Department has issued an office order dated 9-8-2011 which is annexure-B to the show cause filed by the present Chief Engineer.

A perusal of the office order contained in annexure-B shows that although decision in the case of writ petitioners and intervenors has been taken in accordance with the judgment of the writ court in Tulsi Singh''s case, then available as good precedent, but the Chief Engineer has made his order, passed in favour of the petitioner, conditional. The first condition is that the order is in anticipation of post-facto approval or sanction by the Finance Department. The second condition is that the order shall be subject to decision of the Apex Court in a pending S.L.P.( C ) bearing no. 18380/08 filed by State of Bihar against Mahesh Bhagat and others.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Finance Department cannot sit in appeal over the order of the writ court and since the order of the Chief Engineer is in compliance of the order of the writ court, it cannot be dependent upon post-facto approval of the Finance Department. So far as this submission is concerned, it does not require much consideration because post-facto approval of the Finance Department appears to be a mere formality which was required to be observed by the Chief Engineer because under the order of this Court he had been granted limited time to take a final decision. It goes without saying that the Finance Department shall act in the matter strictly in accordance with the judgment of the writ court.

So far as the other condition is concerned, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the second condition imposed by the Chief Engineer in paragraph-5 of the office order contained in annexure-B cannot pass the test of legality. The order of the writ court passed in the year 2005 has attained finality like other orders passed in those times. That order is sought to be implemented through the present contempt application. That order has attained finality between the parties and cannot be made dependent upon the out-come of another litigation between different parties. Hence, submission in paragraph-5 of the office order contained in annexure-B is held to be contrary to law.

In order to be fair to the learned counsel for the State his contention must be noticed. He has submitted that since the earlier rules and policy decision of the State Government relating to regularization of employees working in work-Charge Establishment is subject matter of SLP mentioned in paragraph-5 of the Annexure-B, the Supreme Court''s judgment may be in such words so as to affect earlier decided cases also. Although there is very remote possibility of such a decision, which would unsettle earlier judgments passed between different parties, out of deference to the submission advanced on behalf of State, it is clarified that in case the Supreme Court passes an order to open the earlier decided cases or to reverse the judgments in cases already decided, in that event, the condition in annexure-5 may be made operative by the authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on account of conversion of status of the petitioners from work-charge establishment to regular establishment with effect from 20th October, 2005, they are entitled to consequential monetary benefits. It was also argued that the date 20th October, 2005 is not proper and the petitioners should have been taken into regular establishment with effect from 2-1-1991 when this petitioner was inducted into work charge establishment. There is no such direction of the writ court and hence such new issue cannot be entertained in contempt petition. If petitioner has any fresh demand or grievance then he will be at liberty to approach the authorities concerned or to seek redressal of his grievances through appropriate proceeding in accordance with law.

This contempt application is finally disposed of with the aforesaid observations.