The court held that since the petitioner had been reinstated in service by the respondent authority, the contempt petition regarding violation of a stay order became infructuous and was disposed of.
Rule discharged; petition disposed of as infructuous.
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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.O.C.P. No. 255 of 2008 Date of Decision : April 18, 2009
Aasoo
....Petitioner
Versus
Usha Khatan, District Education Officer-cumDistrict Elementary Education Officer, Mewat
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sajjan Malik, Advocate
Mr. Kartar Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana
T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)
The petitioner had been appointed as a Peon. When his salary was not paid to him, he moved this Court by way of a writ petition, which was disposed of on July 31, 2007, whereby orders were passed for releasing the salary of the petitioner. When the said order was conveyed by the competent authority to the respondent for release of the salary of the petitioner, an order was passed terminating the services of the petitioner. Aggrieved of the order of removal from service, the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 222 of 2008, which came up for motion hearing before the Division Bench on 9.1.2008, when notice of motion was issued and it was directed that the services of the petitioner be not terminated till further orders.
According to the petitioner, he conveyed the aforementioned order dated 9.1.2008 to the office of the respondent on 11.1.2008. He was
C.O.C.P. No. 255 of 2008 -2-
allowed to mark his presence upto 17.1.2008 but thereafter he was not allowed to do so. He even submitted a written representation dated 18.1.2008 (Annexure P2) but inspite of the same, he was not allowed to continue in service after 17.1.2008. As the respondent did not allow the petitioner to continue in service, despite the order passed by the Division Bench on January 09, 2008, the petitioner sought initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent.
Reply dated 22.7.2008 has already been filed by the respondent. In para 1 of the same, it is stated that the respondent received the order dated 13.12.2007 from the office of the Director, Chandigarh for terminating the services of the petitioner. Accordingly, a speaking order was passed on 8.1.2008 to terminate the services of the petitioner. The termination order was duly served upon the petitioner on 8.1.2008 and receipt annexure R.3 was given by the petitioner in that regard. However, on 11.1.2008, the petitioner produced the stay order passed by this Court on 9.1.2008.
Another affidavit dated 24.10.2008 was filed by Ajit Singh Kadian, District Education Officer, Mewat, who had by then joined as such in place of Smt. Usha Khatan, in view of the fact that the reply submitted by the then District Education Officer had been rejected and the respondent was directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh. It has been mentioned in para 4 of the same that after reconsideration of all the facts of the case, the petitioner had been reinstated in service vide office order No. E1/08/31983202 dated 23.10.2008 and he was allowed to join back on duty. As regards additional entry in the receipt register at serial No. 3176A, it was averred in the affidavit that this was a deliberate act on the part of the concerned official
C.O.C.P. No. 255 of 2008 -3-
as, per past practice, no additional entry had been shown anywhere in the register by adding 'A' in the number and for that lapse, the concerned official was being charged sheeted under Rule 7.
Replication has also been filed by the petitioner to the affidavit dated 22.7.2008. However, in view of the fact that the respondent has already owned the responsibility regarding making additional entry in the receipt register at serial No. 3176A, no purpose would be served by considering the stand of the petitioner as mentioned in para 2 therein regarding the factual averments mentioned in the first affidavit submitted by the petitioner.
As the petitioner has already been reinstated in service and continuing to do so till now, the present petition has been rendered infructuous and is, accordingly, disposed of. Rule is discharged.
( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE
April 18, 2009 satish
Aasoo
Usha Khatan
T.P.S. Mann
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
