Shri Shyam Lal Jatav vs Yaduvendra Mathur and Another

Bela M. Trivedi, J.—The present petition has been filed u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India for the alleged non-compliance of the order dated 2.7.07 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 4454/2000. It appears that the petitioner had filed the writ petition seeking appropriate writ, direction or order to give him regular pay-scale on the basis of "equal pay for equal work" with further relief of the regularisation of his services as Chowkidar, including the benefits of bonus, leave, HRA etc. The said petition came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge by the order dated 2.7.07 by passing the following order:-

It appears that the respondent-Corporation has also not framed the Scheme so far. Therefore, the only direction can be issued for framing of the Scheme for such employees and passing appropriate orders.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent-Corporation would frame the scheme as one time measure as directed by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others (supra) as expeditiously as possible and pass appropriate orders within a period of six months from today.

The said order was challenged by the respondent-Corporation in the appeal being DB Civil Special Appeal(W) No. 1291/07. The said appeal also came to be disposed of by the Division Bench vide order dated 22.10.11, whereby the court observed as under:-

Learned Single Judge has already declined the grant of minimum pay of the regular pay scale and also not passed any specific direction about regularisation of services of the petitioner, despite the fact that he is working since 1988 and has issued direction to frame the scheme as one time measure. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge is based on various judgments of Hon''ble Supreme Court including the judgment delivered in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others. Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others (supra), therefore, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, so as to interfere with the same.

There is no merit in this intra-Court appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. Stay application as well as Application No. 19222/2010 also stand disposed of.

The present petition thereafter has been filed by the petitioner on the allegation that the respondent had not framed the scheme as directed by the learned Single Judge and by the Division Bench, and thereby the respondent had committed the contempt of the court. The petition has been resisted by the respondent by filing the reply contending inter alia that after the passing of the order dated 22.10.11, a policy was framed by the respondent as per the Circular dated 19.1.12 as one time measure, as directed by the Apex Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others. Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others (supra). It was also stated in the Reply that the case of the petitioner was also considered by the screening committee constituted in the light of the policy, and the said committee had taken the decision in the meeting held on 15.2.12 that the petitioner was not found suitable for being regularised as he had not completed the requisite services of 10 years, without any intervention of the court or Tribunal. The respondent has also filed the minutes of the meeting of the screening committee as Annex. R/1 to the reply.

The learned counsel Mr. Suresh Kashyap for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has not framed the scheme in consonance with the orders passed by this court and also by the Apex Court in case of Uma Devi (supra), and that the decision of the screening committee of the respondent in not regularising the services of the petitioner is also in violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation of the scheme and, therefore, the appropriate action is required to be taken against the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act.

The court does not find any substance in the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the reply filed by the respondent in the contempt petition was received by the learned counsel for the petitioner on 23.5.12 and since then the petitioner has not bothered to challenge either the scheme or the decision of the screening committee. As such after the disposal of the DB Special Appeal No. 1291/07 vide order dated 22.10.11, the respondent-Corporation had framed the scheme as per the Circular dated 19.1.12. Since the only direction given by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, which was confirmed by the Division Bench, was to frame the scheme in view of the directions given by the Supreme Court in Uma Devi''s case and since the respondent-Corporation has already framed the scheme as per the Circular dated 19.1.12, it could not be said that there was any non-compliance or deliberate disobedience of the orders passed by this court, so as to construe it as the civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, as alleged by the petitioner. In view of the above, no case for contempt has been made out by the petition. The contempt notice is discharged. The petition is dismissed accordingly.