AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel.
Applicants being aggrieved by non-reckoning of their seniority on the basis of length of service, approached the writ Court by filing writ petition No. 1581 of 2006 (S/S). The writ Court, vide order dated 2.12.2010, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Principal Secretary, Labour Department, Lucknow to dispose of the representation of the writ petitions in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order taking into account the decision of Hon''ble Apex Court in Dr. Chandra Prakash and others Versus State of U.P. [2002 (10) SCC 710] within three months.
Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the writ Court, vide order dated 2.12.2010, specifically mandated the Principal Secretary to decide the representation of the applicants in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order taking into account the decision of Hon''ble Apex Court in Dr. Chandra Prakash (Surpa) but instead of deciding the petitioner''s representation in the light of law enunciated by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Dr. Chandra Prakash (Supra), the Principal Secretary, vide order dated 18.4.2011, considered the writ petitioners'' representation in accordance with U.P. Government Employees Seniority Rules, 1991 and rejected the same.
Feeling aggrieved, the instant contempt proceedings u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been instituted.
Notice was issued and in reply thereof, learned Standing Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party and has filed a short counter affidavit alongwith an application for discharge of contempt notice. The same is taken on record.
On perusal of the records, it reflects that applicants'' representation has been decided in accordance with U.P. Government Employees Seniority Rules, 1991 though the writ Court has specifically directed the Principal Secretary to decide the petitioner''s representation after considering the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Dr. Chandra Prakash (Supra). U.P. Government Employees Seniority Rules, 1991 provides that seniority will be decided from the date of reckoning of the service, whereas Hon''ble Apex Court in Dr. Chandra Prakash (supra) held that seniority will be decided from the date of initial appointment.
Since the writ Court has specifically directed the Principal Secretary to decide the applicant''s representation after taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Dr. Chandra Prakash (Supra), it is not open to the authorities to interpret the same while deciding the representation.
Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar Shahi and Others Vs. Prof. Ram Sevak Yadav and Others, .
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as well as law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Anil Kumar Shahi (Supra), I am of the opinion that Anil Kumar Shahi (supra) is not applicable under the facts and circumstances of the instant case, insofar as in Anil Kumar Shahi (supra), representation was directed to be considered in accordance with law and as such, in not deciding the same in accordance with law, the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that when the Court directs the authority to consider a matter in accordance with law, it means that the matter should be considered to the best of understanding by the authority and, therefore, a mere error of judgment with regard to the legal position cannot constitute contempt of Court, whereas in the instant case, the writ Court has specifically directed the Principal Secretary to decide the petitioner''s representation in accordance with law after taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Dr. Chandra Prakash (supra).
From the reasons aforesaid, it is clear that the order passed by the writ Court has not been complied within its letter and spirit and as such, this Court has no option except to summon opposite party.
Accordingly, list the matter 24.1.2012, on which date, opposite party shall appear in person to show cause as to why the charges may not be framed against him for disobeying the order passed by the writ Court.