Contempt petition alleging violation of a prior order directing consideration of the petitioners' pay revision claim. The State's counsel stated compliance; petitioners sought liberty to take legal steps. Court declined to proceed and dropped the contempt proceeding, reserving liberty.
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 JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 542 of 2023
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
--For the Petitioners : Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Faisal Allam, AC to SC Mines III ---
19 /20.08.2024 The learned counsels for the parties are present.
2. This Contempt Civil has been filed for the following relief:
“That this Contempt application is being filed by the petitioners for initiating a contempt proceeding against the contemnors/opposite parties for their willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 14.12.2022 (Annexure 1) passed by this Hon'ble Court presided over Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary, in W.P. (S) No.7340 of 2013, whereby and whereunder this Hon'ble Court has been pleased to set aside the order dated 08.08.2012 and remitted the matter back to respondent No.2 for doing the needful and referring the matter to the Finance Secretary so that the claim of the petitioners is considered by an appropriate pay revision committee which may be constituted and pass reasoned order in accordance with and further directed the petitioners to file a detailed representation with supporting documents/judgment/ circulars, etc before respondent No.2 highlighting every aspect in support of their claim.”
3. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party - State submits that the order passed by this Court has been complied with.
4. The learned counsel petitioners submits that the petitioners are not satisfied with the order passed, and therefore, liberty be reserved with the petitioners to take steps in accordance with law.
5. Considering the submissions, this Court is not inclined to proceed any further in this proceeding, which is accordingly dropped.
6. However, liberty is reserved with the petitioners to take steps in accordance with law.
7. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the opposite parties wilfully violated the order dated 14.12.2022 passed in W.P. (S) No. 7340 of 2013 regarding pay revision claims.
Diwakar Prasad
Baban Prasad Singh
The State of Jharkhand
Sri Arun Kumar Singh
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
