AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Suneet Kumar, J
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The writ court vide order dated 19.04.2000 disposed of the writ petition. The operative portion of the order reads thus:
"Since the State Government itself has framed a rule known as 'Regularisation of U.P. Government Retrenched Employees Rules 1991', in case the petitioners are eligible under this Rule and Govt. Order dated 08.01.1992, the opposite parties are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment if there exist posts in the department in class IV. Till the case of the petitioners are not considered, no appointment shall be made on any class IV post in the department of Nagar Palika Rishikesh.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally."
In the counter affidavit, a categorical stand has been taken that there is no vacancy in the Nagar Palika Parishad which has now been upgraded to Nagar Nigam. Further, it is contended that the appointment that has been made as is being alleged is under the Dying-in-Harness Rules after creating supernumerary posts. It is further urged that by the Government Order dated 07.05.1992 upon abolition of the octroi department the employees who have become surplus, after their retirement or death the post would not be filled and will be treated as dead post. In other words, the posts in the octroi department has been declared dying cadre. In the circumstances, no appointment has been made.
Learned counsel for the applicant does not dispute the averments made in the counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit, however, he submits that the opposite party is granting appointments under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, but are not considering the claim of the applicant.
On specific query, learned counsel for the applicant failed to point out any wilful and deliberate disobedience of the writ court order. The issue that is being agitated in contempt jurisdiction is purely factual and cannot be gone into. Further, the representations of the applicants have been rejected assigning the reasons.
In the circumstances, the contempt petition is consigned to record with liberty to the applicants to raise their grievance before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.