Back
2013 Supreme(J&K) 102
JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
M.M.Kumar; CJ, Hasnain Massodi, JJ.
Gh.Mohi-ud-Din Sheikh & Ors. -Appellant
Versus
Angurana & Ors. -Resopndent
IP A No. 180/2012
Decided On : 26-02-2013
Mr. M.A. Qayoom, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. A.M. Magray. Sr. AAG , Mr. Shah Amir, GA for the Respondents.
Headnote:
Contempt - Disobedience of Court Order - J&K Contempt of Courts Act, 1997 - [Services of 446 Daily Rated Workers discontinued on suspicion of fake engagement - District Development Board decision to verify workers' list - Disbanded workers approached High Court seeking direction to continue and regularize services - Writ petitions disposed with order to Chief Engineer for factual verification - State Government constituted committees and referred matter to Vigilance Organisation for inquiry - Disbanded workers filed another petition after previous dismissal - Contempt petition filed against alleged disobedience of Writ Court order - Alleged contemnor's reply led to dismissal of contempt petition] - The court held that an appeal against an order dismissing the contempt petition or dropping the show cause notice issued to the alleged contemnor is not maintainable under Section 19, J&K Contempt of Courts Act, 1997. The court also clarified that the power to entertain, hear, and deal with intra-court appeal under Letters Patent cannot be eclipsed by Section 19, J&K Contempt of Courts Act, 1997.
Fact of the Case:
The services of 446 Daily Rated Workers were discontinued on suspicion of fake engagement. The workers approached the High Court seeking direction to continue and regularize their services. The State Government constituted committees and referred the matter to the Vigilance Organisation for inquiry. The disbanded workers filed another petition after the previous dismissal. A contempt petition was filed against the alleged disobedience of the Writ Court order. The alleged contemnor's reply led to the dismissal of the contempt petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that an appeal against an order dismissing the contempt petition or dropping the show cause notice issued to the alleged contemnor is not maintainable under Section 19, J&K Contempt of Courts Act, 1997. The court also clarified that the power to entertain, hear, and deal with intra-court appeal under Letters Patent cannot be eclipsed by Section 19, J&K Contempt of Courts Act, 1997.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of an appeal against an order dismissing the contempt petition or dropping the show cause notice issued to the alleged contemnor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an appeal against an order dismissing the contempt petition or dropping the show cause notice issued to the alleged contemnor is not maintainable under Section 19, J&K Contempt of Courts Act, 1997. The court also clarified that the power to entertain, hear, and deal with intra-court appeal under Letters Patent cannot be eclipsed by Section 19, J&K Contempt of Courts Act, 1997.
Final Decision: The appeal against the order of the Single Judge dated 28th September 2012 was dismissed as not maintainable under Section 19, J&K Contempt of Courts Act, 1997.
1. Letters Patent Appeal on hand is directed against order dated 28th Septem#31;ber 2012 in Robkar No. 02/2012 in Contempt No.466/2007, arising out of SWP No.506/1992 titled Robkar v. Shri Sudhanshu Pandey, whereby Robkar has been held not maintainable and Contempt Petition No.466/2007, dismissed. It would be appropriate to have in first place to have an overview of the facts of the case
2. Services of 446 Daily Rated Workers, working in Public Health Engineering Department, Division Handwara, were discontinued/disbanded vide order No. PHE/Works/17809-10 dated 16.03.1992. On the suspicion that their engagement was fake and fabricated. The matter surfaced in District Development Board meet#31;ing of Kupwara District, held on 24th May 1993. The Board decided to get the list furnished by Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering, Kashmir, verified by District Development Commissioner, Kupwara, and to take further action in the matter in light of outcome of such verification.
3. The District Development Commissioner, Kupwara, submitted his report vide No.2704-09 dated 14.12,1993, wherein 362 of 449 disbanded Daily Rated Workers were reported to have been engaged in 1989,1990,1991 and 1992. In respect of others, either engagement orders were not available or were paid through temporary advances or they were not paid at all. In the meantime, the disbanded Daily Rated Workers aggrieved with the order of Chief Engineer, PHE, (K) dated 16.03.1992, approached High Court with as many as eleven writ petitions, seeking a direction to continue and regularise their services. The writ petitions were dis#31;posed of on 19th October 2000 with following order:
"The Chief Engineer will appointment [appoint] a panel of officers, not less than two, to look into the factual aspect with regard to the claim of the petitioners i.e. the genuineness of the engagement of the petitioners as Daily Rated Workers and their subsequent continuation either pursuant to the directions of the court or allowed by the respondents on their own. This exercise shall be done under the supervision of the Chief Engineer and accomplished within three months. The penal [panel] shall be constituted by the Chief Engineer before 15.11.2000, in case it is made out from the report of the panel that the petitioners have been continued as daily rated workers till date, have worked uninterruptedly for a period of seven years as on date and their engagement is genuine, the respondents shall process their cases for regularisation under SRO 64/94, It is clarified that if the petitioners were continuing on 31.3.1994 and they have been discontinued by the respondents, their absence or discontinuation will not be counted by the respondents as an impediment in their way for their entitlement to seek consideration for regularisation as Rule 8 of SRO 64 contemplates continu#31;ation till they complete seven years.
The petitioners are at liberty also to file evidence of their engagement orders and other documents in support of their claims, on or before 15.11.2000, before the Chief Engineer. The petitioners are further at liberty to represent themselves personally or through their counsel as prayed for by the peti#31;tioners but their non-representation will not come in the way of the panel to submit the report. Registry will return the record back to the learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioners, if feel aggrieved of the report they are at liberty to challenge it. Writ petitions are disposed off alongwith connected CMPs and contempt petitions."
4. The State Government, in compliance of Writ Court order dated 19.10.2000 constituted a few committees, one after another, to identify the genuinely appointed Daily Rated Workers on the basis of record. The matter was also referred to the Vigilance Organisation for inquiry and report. The Superintendent of Police (B/K), Vigilance Organisation Kashmir (VOK), vide letter dated 22nd January 2004, in#31;formed the Chief Engineer, PHE,
