AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anil Kumar, J.—Sri Manish Misra, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that initially the applicant for redressal of his grievances has approached State Public Service Tribunal by filing a claim petition allowed, thereafter the order passed therein challenged before this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 106 (SB) of 2002 State of U.P. and Ors. v. Shivrati Ram, allowed vide order dated 16.12.2099 with the following direction:
Accordingly, we are of the view that while upholding the judgment of the Tribunal, liberty should be given to the Petitioners to proceed afresh. The payment of arrears, salary and wages should be subject to final outcome of the enquiry. Accordingly, we modify the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 06-08-2001 passed in Claim Petition No. 643 of 1996 permitting the Petitioners to proceed afresh from the stage of service of chargsheet with the liberty to the claimant-Respondent No. 1 to submit his response to the charge sheet within a period of one month. The Enquiry Officer shall conclude the enquiry within a period of three months and the Disciplinary Authority shall pass appropriate orders within a period of one month thereafter. Thus, let the enquiry be concluded accordingly expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months to its logical end. The consequential benefits including the arrears of salary of the claimant-Respondent No. 1 shall be subject to final outcome of the fresh enquiry. The claimant-Respondent No. 1 shall cooperate with the enquiry.
He further submits that as the said order was not complied with, so applicant initially approached the State Public Service Tribunal where a contempt petition filed by him is pending for non-compliance of the order passed by Public Service Tribunal dated 06.08.2001 passed in Claim Petition No. 643 of 1996 but dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 27.12.2010 (Annexure-3) on the grounds mentioned therein.
Hence the present contempt petition has been filed by applicant u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 on the ground that by order dated 16.12.2009, six months time has been granted to the Respondents to comply with the direction as given vide order dated 16.12.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 160 (SB) of 2002, the same is not done yet, as they are liable to be punished accordingly.
After placing reliance on the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Pallav Sheth Vs. Custodian and Others, and this Court in Special Appeal No. 1080 of 2006 Bali Ram v. Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Gorakhpur and others held that "the action must be initiated, either by filing an application or by the Court issuing notice, within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed." It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the present contempt petition filed by Petitioner is within the statutory period of limitation as provided u/s 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
In view of the above said facts, the submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant is correct, the notices are issued to O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 to show cause through counsel why they should not be punished for disobeyance of the order passed by writ court.
List in the week commencing 04.04.2011.