The Division Bench dismissed a contempt petition filed for non-compliance of a writ order regarding seniority and monetary benefits in an appointment dispute. The Court found that the impugned disposal complied with the original directions.
Discharge of the notice and dismissal of the contempt petition.
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.
1
D.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.336/2014 RUCHIKA KANSARA. VS. SMT. PRABHA SHARMA.
DATE OF ORDER
::: 1.9.2014
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.SUNIL AMBWANI HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
No one appears for the petitioner.
Smt.Prabha Sharma, District Judge, Jalore present in person. Mr.Bhupesh Vyas, Court Manager in the Court of District Judge, Jalore.
No one appears for the petitioner. The District Judge, Jalore is present in person along with the Court Manager of the Judgeship at District Jalore.
This contempt petition has been filed for compliance of the order dated 20.9.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6014/2011 (Ruchika Kansara vs. State of Rajasthan & Others). The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge with the following directions:-
“Therefore, this writ petition is allowed and respondent District & Sessions Judge, Jalore is directed to shift Ms. Preeti Saini, who has been provided appointment in the OBC category (woman) against the vacancy of General category (woman) and, in her place, the petitioner who is at S.No.24 shall be provided appointment forthwith against the post of OBC Woman category; but, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Bhupal Singh's case (supra) the services of respondent no.4 Ms.Nigahat Jahan shall not be terminated because no misrepresentation or fruad is committed by her and appointment has been
2
provided to her by the competent authority with open eyes. But, the petitioner shall be entitled for seniority with effect from the date when respondent No.4 was provided appointment. The petitioner shall be entitled for monetary benefits with effect from the date of judgment of this case.”
In paragraph 3 of the Contempt Petition, it is stated that, in compliance of the order dated 20.9.2012 passed by the Court, the petitioner was given appointment as Lower Division Clerk vide order dated 8.10.2012 and vide this order, the petitioner was given seniority above Ms.Nigahat Jahan. Ms.Nigahat Jahan was given appointment vide order dated 9.6.2011. It is stated that the petitioner accordingly became entitled to get the fixation of her pay on notional basis with effect from 9.6.2011, and treating her as such, the benefit of regular pay scale was given to her with effect from 9.6.2013.
In paragraph 5 of the Contempt Petition, it is stated that the respondent did not interpret the orders of the Court properly and has illegally refused to grant financial benefits to the petitioner as have been granted to Ms.Nigahat Jahan.
A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge shows that he had issued any directions to give monetary benefits to the petitioner with effect from the date of her appointment. It was notionally to be fixed from the date, when Ms.Nigahat Jahan was appointed. The learned Single Judge has directed that the benefit of seniority be given to the petitioner with effect from the date, Ms.Nigahat Jahan was appointed. He did not make the petitioner entitled to the monetary benefits with effect from the said date. The monetary benefits were directed to be given from the date of judgment of the case i.e. with effect from 20.9.2012.
3
The District Judge, Jalore appearing in person has placed before us the orders passed by her, by which a committee has been appointed for providing the monetary benefits to the petitioner. An order was also passed that as and when the probation of the petitioner would be completed, she would be given the financial benefits, in accordance with the recommendations made by the Committee.
We do not find that the respondents have, in any manner, disobeyed the directions issued by this Court. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge denying monetary benefits with effect from the date, when she was directed to be appointed, she could have filed a Special Appeal against the same.
We are satisfied that the directions issued in the judgment have been complied with and thus, we discharge the notice and dismiss the contempt petition.
Before parting the case, we may observe that ordinarily the District Judge, who presides over the judgeship, is not required to appear in person, unless, a specific order has been made. We are informed that since the Advocates are abstaining from work on a resolution passed by the Bar Association, the Counsel representing the District Judge, could not appear. We take a strong exception to the fact that the resolution passed by the Bar Association, has been taken as an excuse by the Counsel, appointed by the Court to represent the Judicial Officers, not to appear and defend the District Judge.If he was in any difficulty, he could have requested for hearing in Chambers or sought an adjournment. In his absence, the District Judge had to leave the Judgeship to attend the Court, by which the work in
4
the judgeship has suffered.
We make it clear that in future, the District Judge or any Judicial Officer will not be required to appear in person unless a specific order is made by the Court for that purpose.
(VIJAY BISHNOI), J. (SUNIL AMBWANI), Actg.CJ.
S.Phophaliya/-
Ruchika Kansara
Smt. Prabha Sharma
Sunil Ambwani
Vijay Bishnoi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
