Arvind Kumar vs Anand Kumar Sharma And Ors

The present contempt petition has been filed interalia contending that due compliance of the order dated 01.09.2015 has not been made.

A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner had earlier filed a contempt petition being Contempt Petition No.100/2016 along with four other persons, who were the petitioners in SB Civil Writ Petition No.166/2015, which had been decided by the subject order dated 01.09.2015. It is noteworthy that the earlier contempt petition (Contempt Petition No.100/2016) had been disposed of by this Court, vide its order dated 24.8.2017 with the following observations :

"Learned counsel for the respondents states that the appointment orders have already been issued to the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 and the same shall also be issued for the petitioner No.5 within two weeks from today.

In view of the above statement, the present contempt petition is rendered infructuous.

Dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged. In case, the needful for the petitioner No.5 is not done, he shall be at liberty to file fresh contempt petition."

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been given joining by the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, raised a grievance that though the petitioner has been permitted to join, but notional benefits have not been given to him.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the view that earlier contempt petition filed by the petitioner alongwith four other petitioners had been disposed of by this Court on 24.08.2017, after being satisfied that the appointment orders have been issued to them. The petitioner was, however, given liberty to file fresh contempt petition, if the present petitioner is not allowed to join.

In view of the aforesaid and looking to the fact that the petitioner has now been permitted to join, this Court is not inclined to proceed with the contempt petition. As far as issue of notional benefit is concerned, no different order can be passed in present case, when no order was passed in this regard when the Contempt Petition No.100/2016 was disposed of by this Court.

This Court is not impelled to pass any inconsistent order.

Notices of contempt are thus discharged.

The contempt petition stands disposed of for statistical purposes.