Back
2022 Supreme(HP) 297
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Rajinder, S/o Shri Jagat Ram – Appellant
Versus
Shri Sita Ram Mardi - Respondent
Civil Original Petition Contempt (Tribunal) No.78 of 2019
Decided on : 17-06-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SHRI PREM P. CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SHRI RAJU RAM RAHI, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL
Point of Law: Once the order is passed by Government on the basis of the directions issued by Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum.
Headnote:
Contempt case - Defying/disobeying the order - Claim of petitioner is that aforesaid Notification is not applicable to him and, thus, he was entitled for appointment within 15 days of sponsorship of his name by Ex-servicemen Cell - Petitioner that rule being referred and as interpreted, to reject claim of petitioner is neither applicable to case of petitioner nor is to be interpreted in such manner and, therefore, rejection of claim of petitioner is in conflict with order passed by Court and, thus, respondents are liable to be punished for committing contempt. Petitioner has to agitate his cause by filing appropriate Writ Petition for adjudication of his eligibility and entitlement for appointment and, in such eventuality, if Court comes to conclusion that he was entitled for appointment and has been ignored and subjected to unwarranted avoidable litigation, then apart from relief of appointment and consequential benefits, he may be compensated by awarding appropriate relief by the Court, but, in any case, such adjudication is not warranted in present case in the given facts and circumstances.(Para 18)
Finding of the Court :
Once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order - Petitioner has to agitate his cause by filing appropriate Writ Petition for adjudication of his eligibility and entitlement for appointment and, in such eventuality, if Court comes to conclusion that he was entitled for appointment and has been ignored and subjected to unwarranted avoidable litigation, then apart from relief of appointment and consequential benefits, he may be compensated by awarding appropriate relief by the Court, but, in any case, such adjudication is not warranted in present case in the given facts and circumstances.
Result : Petition disposed of
ORDER :
Present Petition has been preferred with prayer to punish the contemnor/respondent for willfully, knowingly, intentionally, repeatedly defying/disobeying the order dated 31.12.2018, passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in OA No.7650 of 2018, titled as Rajinder v. State of H.P. & others.
2. In the Original Application, claim of the petitioner was that he was entitled for benefit of judgment passed by this High Court in CWP No.2059 of 2010, titled as Hirdye Prakash v. State of H.P. and another and connected matters, decided on 26.7.2011.
3. In response, it was submitted on behalf of the State that in case of finding the petitioner similarly situated, on verification, benefit of aforesaid judgment shall be extended to him.
4. In view of above, Original Application was disposed of with direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of judgment referred supra to the applicant (petitioner herein), within three months, in case he was similarly situated.
5. Petitioner was seeking appointment on the basis of judgment of this Court in Hirdye Prakash’s case, but he was not offered appointment, which led to filing of present petition.
6. In response to this petition, it has been stated in the reply that name of petitioner was sponsored by Ex-servicemen Cell in response to requisition of the Department to fill the vacancy of Constable vacated by Mast Ram, an Ex-serviceman. Thereafter, candidature of petitioner was scrutinized but he was not found eligible for appointment as per criteria notified by the Government vide Notification No.Home-A(3)-4/2011 dated 24.5.2013 and, thus, was not appointed in place of Mast Ram who resigned from service on 12.5.2017. Further that, in Hirdye Prakash’s case, appointment as TGT of Ex-serviceman was made on 20.9.2003, but the petitioner therein was deemed to be appointed w.e.f. 18.12.2002, as he was held entitled for offer of appointment within 15 days of sponsorship by Ex-servicemen Cell.
7. It has been stated on behalf of respondents that in present case, as petitioner was not found eligible for appointment and, therefore, there was no question of considering his entitlement for appointment from 15th day of sponsorship of his name. He was never appointed for want of eligibility and, therefore, Hirdye Prakash’s case was not applicable to him and, thus, his representation was considered and rejected, on 10.2.2020, by passing a speaking order.
8. Claim of the petitioner is that aforesaid Notification dated 24.5.2013 is not applicable to him and, thus, he was entitled for appointment within 15 days of sponsorship of his name by the Ex-servicemen Cell.
9. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that rule being referred and as interpreted, to reject the claim of the petitioner is neither applicable to the case of petitioner nor is to be interpreted in such manner and, therefore, rejection of claim of the petitioner is in conflict with the order passed by the Court and, thus, respondents are liable to be punished for committing contempt.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of contention of the petitioner, has placed reliance upon A.P. SRTC and others v. G. Srinivas Reddy and others, (2006) 3 SCC 674; Debendranath Nanda v. Chandra Shekhar Kumar, (2012) 13 SCC 295; and Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others v. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530.
11. Learned Deputy Advocate General has advocated for dismissal of the petition by placing reliance upon judgment dated 28.10.2020, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.4729 of 2020, titled as Managing Director, H.P. Electronics Development Corporation v. State of Himachal Pradesh & others.
12. Eligibility as well as entitlement of the petitioner was not adjudicated by the Tribunal on merits, but on the undertaking given on behalf of the State, petition was disposed of with direction to verify the facts and extend the benefit of Hirdye Prakash’s case to the petitioner, in case he was found to be similarly
