PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.S.Singhvi and N.K.Sodhi JJ.
Court On Its Oun Motion
Versus
N.S.Kanwar
Civil Original Contempt Petition No. 721 of 1994,
Decided On : AUGUST 18, 1994
CONTEMPT OF COURT - NON-COMPLIANCE OF COURT ORDER - REGULARISATION OF SERVICE - DAILY WAGE EMPLOYEES - INTERPRETATION OF COURT ORDER - WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE - EXPLANATION OF RESPONDENT - ACCEPTANCE OF APOLOGY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, daily wage employees, filed a writ petition seeking regularisation of their service. The High Court directed the respondents to consider their claim in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Piara Singh's case and any subsequent instructions issued by the State Government. Despite the order, the respondents failed to take any action, prompting the petitioners to file a second petition. The High Court initiated contempt proceedings against the Executive Engineer responsible for non-compliance.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the respondent, Executive Engineer, was guilty of contempt of court for wilfully disobeying the court's order. The court found that the respondent had full knowledge of the order and was aware of the consequences of non-compliance. The court rejected the respondent's explanation that he was awaiting clarification from the government, as he had not taken any steps to seek guidance or express any difficulty in complying with the order.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent wilfully disobeyed the court's order? 2. Whether the respondent's explanation for non-compliance was justified? 3. Whether the apology tendered by the respondent should be accepted?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the respondent's failure to comply with the court's order for over a year and six months, despite full knowledge of the direction given by the High Court, amounted to wilful disobedience. 2. The court rejected the respondent's explanation that he was awaiting clarification from the government, as he had not taken any steps to seek guidance or express any difficulty in complying with the order. 3. The court accepted the respondent's apology, considering that he had taken steps to comply with the court's order after receiving the notice of contempt and had tendered an unqualified apology.
Final Decision: The court held the respondent guilty of contempt of court but let him off with a severe warning. The court also directed the respondent to pay costs of Rs. 1,000 to each of the petitioners.
G.S.SINGHVI, J.
1. This case is illustrative of the plight of low paid employees who are made to litigate more than once for enforcing their basic and bare rights in relation to their conditions of service. This is also illustrative of the growing malady in the administration and the attitude of defence of the Court orders by the administrative authorities who are unmindful of the fact that their action and omission of not complying the Court orders or violating the same leads to the denigration of entire constitutional system.
2. Thakur Singh and others filed Writ Petition No. 1093 of 1990 with a prayer for issue of a direction to the respondents to regularise their service. This petition was disposed of by the High Court on 3/12/1992 with a direction to the respondents to consider/reconsider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana V/s. Piara Singh, 1992 (4) SCC 118 . The Court observed that the petitioners be granted relief of regularisation only if they fall within the purview of the judgment or any other subsequent instructions issued by the State Government in this behalf.
3. Although order dated 3-12-1992 was not carried out by the respondents, instead of filing a contempt petition, Thakur Singh and Munshi, two of the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No. 1093 of 1993, filed second petition which came to be registered as CWP No. 263 of 1994. In this petition, the petitioners averred that they had been appointed as Beldars in Public Works Department of Government of Haryana in the year 1977 and that although they are continuously working since 1977, they have been paid as daily wagers and their services have not been regularised. The petitioners further stated that the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana issued instructions dated 27-5-1993 for regularisation of the service of work charged/casual/daily wages employees who had completed five years service as on 31-3-1993 and though the High Court had passed order dated 3-12-1992 for consideration of their case in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in Piara Singhs case, no action has been taken by the respondents for regularisation of their service. In reply, the respondents did not controvert the statement of the petitioners that they are in employment since 1977. However, they pleaded that petitioners do not fulfil the conditions specified in the judgment of the Supreme Court and the policy decision of Government of Haryana and for this reason they are not entitled to regularisation.
4. When the writ petition was listed before the Court on 20-7-1994, the case was adjourned for 22-7-1994 on the request made by learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. On 22-7-1994, learned DAG, Haryana made a statement that the order passed by the High Court on 3/12/1992 in CWP No. 1093 of 1990 has been complied with by the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD (B and R) Naraingarh, District Yamunanagar by passing order dated 21-7-1994. He made a statement that the claim of the petitioners for regulisation in service has been rejected. At that stage, the Court enquired from him as to why steps were not taken for such a long time for compliance of the Courts order dated 3/12/1992. The learned Deputy Advocate General expressed his inability to offer any justification on this count. After taking note of the fact that no justification has been offered by the respondents in general and particularly the respondent-Executive Engineer for non-compliance of the Courts order for the last 11/2 years, which compelled the petitioners to institute a second petition, the Court suo motu initiated contempt proceedings against the non-petitioner.
5. In response to the notice issued by the Court, respondent -- N. S. Kanwar has filed an affidavit stating therein that although Haryana Government issued instructions on 27-5-1993 for regularisation of daily wage employees who had completed 5 years service on 31-3
Bardkanta Mishra V/s. Bhimsen Dixit
Heatons Transport Ltd. V/s. Transport And General Workers Union
State Of Bihar V/s. Madhya Pradesh, Khair Industries
State Of Haryana V/s. Piara Singh
Andhra Pradesh High Court In Taluri Seshaiah V/s. M. Narayan Rao
Aligarh Municipal Board V/s. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.