The doctrine of merger and compliance with judgments under the Contempt of Courts Act.

1. Instant M.J.C. petition under the garb of Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to initiate a contempt proceeding against the opposite parties/ contemners on account of non-compliance of judgment/ order dated 09.03.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No.10243 of 2006 (Annexure-1). Accordingly, the opposite parties/contemners have their appearance and filed show-cause disclosing therein that the judgment impugned has been challenged under Letters Patent Appeal No.2021 of 2011. So, the present proceeding be kept in abeyance for the time being and in pursuance thereof, vide order dated 07.02.2012, ordered so. After disposal of L.P.A. No.2021 of 2011, another show-cause was filed wherein it has been stated that the order passed under L.P.A. No.2021 of 2011, has been complied with and on account thereof, instant petition be dismissed.

2. The order passed by the Division Bench under L.P.A. No.2021 of 2011 has been annexed under Annexure-A of the show-cause and to appreciate the controversy in its right perspective, the relevant portion is quoted below:-

“Pending this Appeal, the State Government has, in its Finance Department, passed a Resolution on 17th October 2013 for regularization of the services of the daily wage employees absorbed in Work Charge Establishment and in receipt of regular pay.

In view of the above referred Resolution dated 17th October 2013, the Appeal and the interlocutory application are disposed of.”

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that aforesaid order passed in L.P.A. No.2021 of 2011 did not contain and dealt with the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3486 of 2006 (arising out of S.L.P. No.11376 of 2003) Dinbandhu Pandey v. State of Bihar and others whereupon the order dated 09.03.2011 has been passed under C.W.J.C. No.10243 of 2006. Furthermore, it has also been submitted that Resolution dated 17.10.2013, happens to be contrary to the spirit of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dinbandhu Pandey (Supra) Case on account thereof, the finding so recorded by the Division Bench would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Furthermore, it has also been submitted that on account of aforesaid deficiency, the question of merger would not arise. Hence, instant contempt proceeding is to be proceeded with a direction to the contemners either to comply the findings so recorded by the Learned Single Judge under C.W.J.C. No.10243 of 2006 (Annexure-1), failing which be dealt with in terms of Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Also relied upon Monnet Ispat & Energy Limited vs. Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation through its Managing Director & Ors. reported in 2014 (2) PLJR 584.

4. On the other hand, the learned AAG-10 has submitted that instant contempt proceeding has become infructuous and on account thereof, same should be dropped. To justify the same, it has been submitted that the judgment (Annexure-1) passed by the Learned Single Judge has been challenged under L.P.A. No.2021 of 2011 and the same has been disposed of in terms of observation so made therein. On account of theory of merger, the judgment of the Learned Single Judge has merged with the finding so made under L.P.A. and as the contemners have already complied therewith, therefore, instant proceeding, now loses its relevancy. Also referred Jaswant Singh and others v. Union of India and others reported in (1979) 4 SCC 440.

5. After going through the relevant Annexures filed on behalf of respective parties, it is evident that C.W.J.C. No.10243 of 2006 (Annexure-1) was passed taking into account the finding recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dinbandhu Pandey v. State of Bihar (Supra). It is also evident that aforesaid judgment was subject to challenge under L.P.A. No.2021 of 2011 (Annexure-A) under Appellate Jurisdiction and the same was disp