AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Sujatha, J
Both these contempt cases are filed alleging willful disobedience in implementing the order dated 06.04.2015 passed in W.P.No.9352 of 2015 and order dated 09.03.2015 passed in W.P.No.5716 of 2015. Since the interim order passed by this Court in both the writ petitions and the respondents are almost one and the same, I am of the view that it is appropriate to decide both these petitions by common order taking C.C.No.1359 of 2015 as leading petition.
The Contempt Case No.1359 of 2015 has been filed complaining willful disobedience in implementing the Order dated 06.04.2015 passed by thisCourt in W.P.No.9352 of 2015.
The background for initiating this contempt case is as under:
The petitioner filed W.P.No.9352 of 2015 to declare the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 therein in forcibly objecting the petitioner to discharge/perform his duties as per the original appointment made on 08.12.1984, and converted his service from regular service into contractual service vide letter dated 30.11.2013 under the guise of resolution passed by the Executive Committee and Board of Management that only those employees who opted to come under contract system will be eligible for extension of age from 58 to 60 years, thereby affecting the petitioner continuation of service in which post he was originally appointed without any notice as unconstitutional, without jurisdiction and illegal.
On 06.04.2015, while issuing notice before admission, this Court has passed the following order.
“…. However, the petitioner shall be continued subject to the same terms and conditions existing as of now till he attains the age of superannuation and retires eventually.”
The petitioner contended that pursuant to the above said interim direction dated 06.04.2015, he approached the respondents on 07.04.2015 along with the copy of order in W.P.No.9352 of 2015 and handed over the copy of order to the concerned officer. But, in spite of the same, without permitting the petitioner to continue in service, respondent No.1 has issued notice dated 22.04.2015 informing that the petitioner would not be allowed to attend the office as there is no order in his favour. After lapse of sufficient time also, the respondents intentionally did not choose to implement the order passed by this Court, thereby willfully violated the direction given by this Court.
Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavitcontending that the question of superannuation of the petitioner does not arise, as his contract of service had expired by 14.05.2014. According to the Model Form issued by the Government of India, the petitioner has been taken into contractual service from year to year, as the grant-in-aid has been sanctioning from year to year. It is further contended in the counter affidavitthat on one hand, petitioner has approached the Civil Court and on the other hand, approached this Court leaving the original jurisdiction of Cooperative Societies Tribunal at Visakhapatnam, as such he is prosecuting parallel proceedings which may result in conflict of judgments by different Courts, which is impermissible under law and requested to dismiss the contempt case.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents/contemnors.
On perusal of the material available on record, it appears that,on 28.08.2015, Notice in Form-I was issued to the respondents in C.C.No.1359 of 2015. On 01.10.2015 the respondents appeared before this Court. However, their presence is dispensed with.
On 13.11.2015, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners in both the contempt cases have already been allowed to the office and they are attending the office.
The statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents on 13.11.2015 that the petitioners in both cases have already been allowed to the office and they are attending to the office, is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioners. However, these contempt cases have been listed along with the main writ petitions.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the statement made before this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents on 13.11.2015, and the fact that the petitioners did not deny the said statement, it appears that the petitioners were allowed to attend their office.
In view of the same, no contempt lies against the respondents.
Accordingly, both the contempt cases are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed.