AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.S. Mishra, C .J.
Heard
Contemners have not taken any lesson from the order of the Court, dated July 6, 1995 in which it is recorded that learned counsel appearing for them produced ah office order, dated June26, 1995, by the Regional Manager, Vijayawada Region, appointing the petitioner as Attender under Regulation No. 17 of the Employees'' (Recruitment) Regulations of the Corporation and brought a cheque, dated July 4, 1995, issued by the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Vijayawada Region, for a sum of Rs.4000/- drawn in favour of the petitioner, to show that there was a genuine compliance of the directions of the Court in Writ Appeal No. 112 of 1995, dated February 20, 1995 and finally they have landed themselves to the present situation in which the Court has no option but to hold that they have shown not only disregard but disobedience to the order of the Court. Direction to give compassionate appointment to the widow of a deceased employee, who died in harness, is allegedly complied with the Office Order, dated June 27, 1995 which reads as follows:
"Ref : 1. Hon''ble High (Court) A.R Judgment dt.June 29, 1994
Hon''ble High Court A.P. Judgment in W.A. No. 112/95, dt. February 28, 1995.
With immediate effect Smt. V. Suguna, W/o V.R.K. Murthy, Ex- driver of Vijayawada-II Depot is hereby appointed as Attender under Regulation 17 of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Recruitment Regulations in the scale of 1405-40-1805-55-2355-60-2715 and on the pay Rs. 1,405/- with usual allowances. She is posted to Tiruvur Depot. The appointment is subject to the following conditions:
The appointments is purely on emergency basis and liable for termination without assigning any notice.
This shall not confer on her any right for regularisation at a future date.
She is found medically fit vide medical certificate No.68693 of May 2, 1995. Her date of birth is January 2, 1950.
She is allotted with staff No.357325.
She is liable to be transferred anywhere in the Corporation
Sd/-. xxxxxxxxxxxx,
Personal Officer Vijayawada Region".
The above order is nothing but a pretext and a show of compliance, without any semblance of any regard to the direction of the Court inasmuch as the extended appointment was not only purely temporary but with the conditions that the same would confer on her no right to claim regularisatoin of service at a future date. In course of hearing of the contempt petition when the Court noticed that the proposed appointment of the petitioner as Attender at Tiruvur Depot at a long distance from her home, was not proper, the respondents, have purportedly modified the said order by a fresh order, dated October 12, 1995, saying, inter alia that in modification of the order above, she is posted as Attender in the Depot at Vidyadharapuram in Vijayawada Region. A copy of the order has been produced before us.
Records revealed that the first respondent has been heading the Corporation, but has, in fact, nothing to do with the appointment as directed by the Court except to take the responsibility to comply with the directions of the Court as the head of the Corporation. Same thing cannot be said about the second respondent-Regional Manager, who has claimed that he has complied with the order of the Court by the order, dated June 27, 1995 as modified by the order, dated October 12, 1995.
Contemners are present in Court. Although there is an attempt to justify the conduct of the respondents before us by the learned counsel, Mr.P. Gangarami Reddy, contemners in person have tendered unqualified apology. Since we have good reasons to hold that the first respondent has played no role in deflecting the course of justice by showing a certain appointments as Attender for the Petitioner in the purported compliance of the order of the Court, although he, as the head of the Corporation, cannot be heard to say that he could afford to be ignorant and oblivious of the directions of the Court and their compliance by the Corporation, we are inclined to accept his apology and exonerate him without any punishment.
It is with regret that we record that Government undertakings and authorities, which are manned by none else but technically servants or employees of such undertakings, behave as masters of the olden days as if they can hire any person at their will and fire whenever they like. The concept that all servants are equals and that they all enjoy a status in the hierarchy of the service in accordance with the Rules and regulations which determine their service conditions has not dawned on them. Archaic approach of the master who commanded the servant to do his biddings at his terms, is unknown to the democratic system of ours. Before issuing the letter of appointment to the petitioner, the second respondent would have thought twice that if he treated an employee subordinate to him in such a casual manner, his superior can do so to him as well. The letter of appointment with the conditions aforementioned, we are satisfied, is in clear disregard to the order of the Court and is wilful disregard, as the second respondent has his own explanations why he did not care to issue a regular appointment letter in favour of the petitioner. Notwithstanding his apology, we hold him guilty of contempt of Court.
In Vidya Charan Shukla Vs. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association and another, , speaking for the Full Bench of the Madras High Court, one of us has stated that High Court''s jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of India as a Court of Record not only extends to determination of contempt, but also to the determination whether the allegations constitute civil or criminal contempt and that in most of the cases of wilful disobedience, which constitute a civil contempt, there are ingredients of criminal contempt as well. The Full Bench has also said that the Court can also determine whether, instead of any action or committal for contempt, the Court should make any other order which would be in the interest of administration of justice.
The instant case is one in which an appointment to a dependent of the bread winner, who died in harness, has been denied and deliberately delayed by the second respondent. The very purpose of compassionate appointment is defeated, if appointment is not given to the dependents of an employee, who died in harness, and the dependents lost the benefits of being fed by the employee concerned. The second respondent, by his conduct, has put the petitioner in conditions of starvation with other dependents who were/are looking forward to the compliance of the order of the Court and thus hoping to gain their bread by virtue of the appointment in lieu of the bread winner who had died in harness. It is a fit case, in our opinion, in which the Court should take the alternative to provide to the petitioner the monetary assistance which is her due, as, but for the second respondent ignoring the directions of the Court and not giving to her appointment she would have been appointed and earned the emoluments payable to an attender.
We, for the above reasons are of the view that ends of justice can be met by issuing a direction to the Corporation to pay to the petitioner full emoluments of an Attender with effect from the date of the first Office Order i.e., order dated June 27, 1995 upto date and until the order of the Court is complied with by issuing in her favour a proper appointment order. It shall be the responsibility of the second respondent to see that all arrears, calculated as per our direction, are paid to the petitioner within ten days from today and the petitioner is paid her salary each month accordingly until a regular appointment is given to her, failing which he shall stand convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. It shall be open to the Corporation to realise any money which it is forced to pay to the petitioner for the defaults of the second respondent.
In the result, the contempt case is allowed against the second respondent and the Rule is affirmed in terms as above and dismissed in so far as the first respondent is concerned and the Rule discharged accordingly.