Contempt application filed for non-compliance with a Writ Court order staying termination of services. The court found the Writ Court order had been complied with, making the application infructuous, and dismissed it.
Contempt application dismissed as infructuous; notice discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 4
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 485 of 2021
Applicant :- Akhilesh Pachauri And 8 Others Opposite Party :- Rajendra Prasad Giri Managing Director Counsel for Applicant :- Shashank Singh,Mahendra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sunil Kumar Misra,Ayush Mishra
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard Ms. Vijeta Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri U.S. Singh Visen, learned counsel for the opposite party.
The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite party for wilful disobedience of the judgement and order dated 09.12.2020 passed in Writ A No.8042 of 2020. The operative portion of the order is reproduced hereinbelow :-
"Heard Ms. Vijeta Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioners by means of present writ petition has assailed the orders dated 19.07.2020 and 27.07.2020 passed by the respondent no.4.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners have been engaged on contract basis as Conductor in UPSRTC since 2009 and they have been continuously working on the basis of renewal of contract.
By the impugned orders, services of the petitioners have been terminated on the ground that PRD certificates of the petitioners were fake.
It is contended that the petitioners have been working continuously since 2009 on the basis of PRD certificates and all of sudden, the respondents found the said certificates to be fake. She also submits that no PRD certificates are required to produce by the petitioners. She further submits that if the certificates of the petitioners were found fake, an appropriate enquiry ought to have been conducted by the respondents and the petitioner should have been given proper opportunity of hearing. The orders impugned clearly reveal that no enquiry has been conducted, and if any enquiry has been conducted, the petitioners were not allowed to participate in the said enquiry. Thus, the submission is that the orders impugned are illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice as the impugned orders have been passed without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing. She further submits that the order impugned has been passed in a mechanical manner and after the petitioners are removed, some new persons would be recruited which amounts to unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents. It is also contended that it
is settled in law that contractual employee cannot be replaced by adhoc employee.
Since the respondents are State, it is expected of the State to act fairly and in transparent manner.
Per contra, Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that under the scheme of Central Government, these petitioners have been appointed. In the said scheme, 50% is funded by Union of India, 30% by State Government and 20% by other corporation and organization. The the procedure prescribed in the scheme is followed for appointment and only those persons are appointed whose name has been forwarded by PRD department under the ministry of Social Welfare.
Matter requires consideration.
All the respondents are granted one week time to file counter affidavit. One week thereafter is allowed to the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavit.
Until further orders of this Court, effect and operation of the orders dated 19.07.2020 and 27.07.2020 passed by the respondent no.4 so far as it relates to the petitioners shall remain stayed."
An affidavit of compliance has been filed by the opposite party, same is taken on record. In paragraph 9 of the aforesaid affidavit of compliance it is stated that the order passed by the writ court has already been complied with and two orders namely dated 2.6.2021 and 10.6.2021 were passed, copies of the same were appended as annexure-1 to the affidavit of compliance. Since it is admitted between the parties that the order of the Writ Court has been complied with therefore, no cause of action remained survive.
In view of the same, the present contempt application is dismissed as infructuous. The personal presence of opposite party is exempted and notice is discharged.
Order Date :- 3.8.2021 Pramod Tripathi
Akhilesh Pachauri And 8 Others
Prakash Padia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
