Contempt petition filed alleging willful disobedience of interim orders directing the respondent to permit petitioner to continue as driver. Court found no willful disobedience as primary issue remains pending in related writ petition.
No, as contempt not made out.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
COPC (T) No.1162 of 2020 Decided on: 2nd November, 2023
__________________________________________________________ Anokhi Ram
....Petitioner
Versus
Sandeep Bhatnagar & Anr.
……Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner: Mr. Piyush Verma, Advocate with Mr. Anuj Bali, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)
The petitioner has filed the instant contempt petition, alleging willful disobedience and disregard to the orders dated 18.03.2019, Annexure-CP-1, passed in OA No. 1069/2019 (now stands registered as CWPOA No. 6496/
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
-2-
the State Administrative Tribunal (now abolished) read as under:
“In the facts and circumstances, particularly that the impugned communication dated 14.03.2019, prima facie, appears to have been issued without putting the applicant to notice, thereby tantamounting to infringement of the principles of natural justice, there shall be a direction in the interim to the respondents to permit him to continue to work as Driver on the same terms and conditions as before till further orders.
Dharampur has filed the reply to the contempt petition, on the affidavit sworn on 24th November, 2020. A reference to Paras 3 & 4 of the reply affidavit reads as under:
“That in reply to these of paras, it is very humbly submitted that the appointment of a Driver on regular basis against Exservicemen quota was made on 08.03.2019 and the Driver so appointed joined his duties on 13.03.2019, whereafter the services of the petitioner automatically discontinued as per terms and condition stipulated in the sanction letter of Director, Rural Development Department, (Annexure R-1). The petitioner obtained stay order dated 18.03.2019 in his OA No. 1069/2019, (Annexure CP-1) filed with the petition. It is submitted that at no stretch of time the order of the Hon’ble Tribunal had been non complied by the replying respondents department, rather the petitioner himself remained willfully absent w.e.f 24.03.2020 i.e. after lockdown announced by the
-3-
Government without any intimation. The petitioner, as a matter of fact, is busy in his own business i.e. running his own shop in his name as allotted to him by the Panchayat Samiti, Dharampur, Solan. The copy of the rent ledger is herewith as Annexure R-2. Beside this, the petitioner has obtained the financial assistance under the PMEGP scheme for self-employment from Industry Department, the attested photocopy of the sanction order dated 15.03.2018 (Annexure R-3). In so far as the demand of the petitioner for paying his wages/ salary is concerned, the replying respondent mailed his musterolls to his outsource-agency i.e. Saraswati Dot Com Shimla further necessary action as per office procedure being adopted in his case. It is submitted that no communication from the said agency has ever been received by the replying respondent department. Hence, the allegation that the replying respondent did not pay him his wages/ salary is not based on facts. It is also added here that all the facts of his case qua wages etc. were brought into the knowledge of the Higher Authorities and the said authority suggested the replying respondent to file CMP (MO) in this Hon’ble High Court for vacation of stay. Since the MA in OA No. 1069/ 2019 already stood filed in the Hon’ble erstwhile Tribunal, the replying respondent has filed an application u/s. 151 CPC and Article 226 (A) of the Constitution of India for early hearing, which application is pending adjudication and decision till date. Therefore, the of allegation intimidation and restraining the petitioner from entering into the office is not also based on facts and record. Hence, there is no violation of the order dated 18.03.2019 on part of the replying respondent”.
-4-
Annexure-CP-1 reveals that the Court has passed the interim orders directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to work as Driver on the same terms & conditions
as before till further orders. In this background, records reveal that the petitioner was employed as Driver on outsource basis. A reference to the reply reveals that though the interim orders, were passed on 18.03.2019 but, the respondents have started the process and have filled up regular post of Driver against Ex-servicemen quota on 08.03.2019 and the fresh appointee has already been appointed and joined on 13.03.2019 i.e. prior to the passing of interim orders on 18.03.2019.
disengagement on 14.03.2019 was arbitrary and without complying with the Principles of Natural Justice.
registered as CWPOA No. 6469 of 2020 Anokhi Ram Vs. State of HP and Anr . and the same is pending adjudication,
-5-
therefore, this Court is of the view that all such contentions can be raised in the pending CWPOA.
(Ranjan Sharma) Judge
November 02, 2023 (Sunil)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent department committed willful disobedience of interim orders dated 18.03.2019 by appointing another driver before the orders were passed.
Whether the petitioner's absence from duty constitutes non-compliance with the interim direction to continue working.
Anokhi Ram
Sandeep Bhatnagar
Ranjan Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
