IMPORTANT POINT
Contempt of court - LPA against the orders passed in contempt petition is not maintainable as said orders are interlocutory in nature.

JUDGMENT

Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, J.—Instant appeal is directed against the order dated 15.04.2021 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in a contempt petition bearing CPSW No.342/2014 titled as Abid Nazir vs. Mrs Sarita Chauhan and Ors.

2. The respondent herein, had filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 109/2013, claiming inter alia amongst others, following reliefs:—

1. Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the petitioner also against the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest with effect from 22.05.2009 and give him all the consequential benefits as envisaged by law.

2. Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of ACF with effect from 22.5.2009 and release annual increments and other benefits in favour of the petitioner accordingly and also consider him for promotion to the next higher grade or post on the basis of said seniority as and when process of such promotion is initiated or undertaken by them.

3. The writ court disposed of the writ petition vide its judgment dated 29.01.2014, thereby directing the appellants to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization as Assistant Conservator of Forests on the analogy of his colleagues retrospectively and also observed that the petitioner (respondent herein) shall be entitled to the consequential service benefits in the same manner as have been extended to his similarly placed officers. For facility of reference, the operative portion of the Writ Court judgment supra is reproduced here under:—

“12. In light of the above, this petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner for regularization as Assistant Conservator of Forests on the analogy of his colleagues retrospectively. The petitioner shall be entitled to the consequential service benefits in the same manner as have been extended to his similarly placed officers.”

4. The respondent herein, filed a contempt petition bearing CPSW No. 342/2014, alleging violation of the judgment dated 29.01.2014. In response to the contempt petition, a detailed status report was filed wherein, it was stated that pursuant to the directions of the writ court, the Forest Department vide Communications dated 11.10.2019 and 29.10.2020, forwarded a proposal to Public Service Commission with regard to ante-dating the promotion of the petitioner from 01.01.2013 instead of 15.05.2015. Thereafter, the matter was again considered by the contempt court and the court in terms of order dated 12.03.2015 disposed of the contempt petition in the following manner:—

“In the given circumstances and in order to ensure compliance of the Judgment of this Court and in view of peculiar circumstances of the case, it shall be appropriate to ask respondent No. 1 to issue orders of promotion in favour of the petitioner in compliance of the above mentioned judgment in absence of the clearance from DPC/PSC subject to condition that the clearance shall be obtained after availability of the DPC/PSC. Order of Promotion shall be issued within a period of 15 days from today. In case respondent No. 1 fails to comply with the directions same shall be reported by the petitioner to this Court and the contempt petition will get reviewed.

Disposed of.”

Though the order dated 12.03.2015 amounts to overreaching the direction of the writ court but this order passed in CPSW No. 342/2014 was not challenged by the respondents and has attained finality.

5. Subsequent thereto, the Public Service Commission vide its communication dated 02.12.2020 informed the appellant department that the DPC meeting was held on 02.11.2020, wherein, it was decided to consider the revised date of regularization of promotion of the petitioner as Assistant Conservator of Forests, but the recommendation in his favour was kept withheld for want of vigilance clearance. It was further stated that the petitioner (res