Court mandates compliance with prior orders, allowing time for reevaluation of petitioner's claims.

ORDER

This contempt case is filed alleging disobedience of order dated 13.09.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.10794 of 2021.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar matters in C.C.No.323 of 2023 and batch, dated 22.11.2024, this Court has directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners therein afresh for grant of relief as per the directions of this Court and three (3) months time was granted to comply with the directions of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner is also similarly situated, he may also be granted similar relief in this contempt case.

3. Learned counsel for the contemnors also heard.

4. This Court disposed of similar matters in C.C.No.323 of 2023 and batch on 22.11.2024. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereunder for the sake of clarity:

“5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, this Court had directed the respondents to file their counter affidavits. The respondent No.4 has filed a counter affidavit stating that the records available for the periods from March 1992 to 2005, 2009-2012, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-20, 2021-22 were verified and the particulars of the petitioners claimed in the writ petitions were never traced out and thus justified the speaking orders passing by them.

6. This Court finds the reply of the respondents to be pre-posterous. The direction of this Court was to verify if the petitioner had worked during the years 1979 to 1988, whereas the respondents claim to have verified the records from 1992 onwards. If that was the case, definitely the name of the petitioner would not find place in the records. The respondents apparently have misunderstood the directions of this Court or are trying to dodge the issue by stating that they have verified the records. As seen from the documents filed along with the Contempt Case, the respondents have clearly stated that the records pertaining to engagement of NMRs in the years 1983-88 were damaged and it was not possible even to look into the records. Therefore, it is clear that the respondents have not looked into the relevant material records at all and they have issued the speaking order without any basis observing that the details of the petitioner was not traced out and have also filed an affidavit to this effect. This would but amount to the commission of an act of perjury before this Court. However, the writ petitioner also has not filed any documents or evidence to show that he was ever engaged as NMR by the respondents, except for placing reliance upon the copies of the writ petition filed by him before this Court and the counter affidavits filed by the respondents. Since in the counter affidavits in the earlier writ petitions, the respondents have not taken any objection that the petitioners therein were never engaged as NMRs, the presumption to be drawn is that the petitioners have been engaged as NMRs during the relevant period.

7. In view thereof, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents cannot take a stand contrary to their contentions in the counter affidavits filed by their own department on the earlier occasions and thus, in the absence of material to the contrary, they have to consider that the petitioner has worked as NMR. The petitioner is only 1 in number and since it is contended that it is not possible to verify the records due to damages of records by pests, the respondents are required to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for grant of relief as per the directions of this Court. Therefore, three (3) months time is granted to the respondents to comply with the directions of this Court.

8. With these directions, the Contempt Case is closed with a warning to the respondents to be careful in making their submissions before the Court. There shall be no