Ram Lal Sharma vs Chandmina (IPS)

Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Petitioner filed SWP No. 112/89 and it was disposed of with the following directions :

This petition is disposed of with a direction that respondentauthorities would take notice of instructions and also the decision of this court noticed

above. If permanent vacancy existed in the year 1986, then the claim of the petitioner be considered for making payment of full salary in terms of

instructions referred to above. Let a decision be taken and communicated to the petitioner within a period of three months. This period shall begin

from the date, the copy of order passed by this court today is made available by the petitioner to the respondentauthorities.

Petitioner alleges that since this direction of the court has not been carried out, as such proceedings need to be initiated against the respondent

under the Contempt of Courts Act. Respondent was put to notice. He has filed statement of facts. As per his stand in terms of the order of this

court in the writ petition No. 112/89 due consideration has been given and Order No. 247 of 1999 dated 21.9.99 has been passed. Operative

portion of the order is as under :

In view of the directions of Hon'ble High Court it is hereby ordered that Shri Ram Lal Sharma, the then SubInspector may be allowed to draw the

charge allowance for the period he held the post of Admn. Jamadar in the RTC in addition to his own duties with effect from 05.01.1987 to

31.3.1988 as is admissible under SubRule (B) of Rule 87 of J and K Civil Service Rules.

He will not be entitled for the seniority from the date of charge allowance, as he was censured during this period and due to currency of punishment

he would not have been promoted. So inter seseniority will not be affected by this order.

Now the direction issued by this court extracted hereinabove and the operative portion of order dated 21.9.99 (supra) need to be reconciled

and matter then to be decided whether direction of the court has been carried out or not. If the answer is in the affirmative, then this petition is

liable to be dismissed, otherwise consequences in law will follow.

Petition was disposed of directing the respondentauthorities to take notice of instructions (Government instructions contained in Rule 85 of J and

K Civil Service Regulations) as also decision of the High Court reported in 1992 KLJ 158. In case permanent vacancy existed in the year 1986,

then the claim of petitioner for making payment of full salary was to be considered in terms of the instructions.

What was required of the respondentauthorities in the writ petition was to determine whether there was any clear cut vacancy in the year 1986,

and in case there was one, then further action was to be taken by them by considering the claims of the petitioner for making payment of full salary

on the basis of instructions (supra). When a reference is made to the operative portion of Order No. 247/99, extracted above, none of these

directions issued in the writ petition have been complied with. There is no finding whether any permanent vacancy existed in the year 1986 or not.

Question of further considering the claim of petitioner for release of full salary was only to be arrived at once the vacancy existed. So in the

absence of definite, clear and specific finding, further consideration of the claim of petitioner as per instructions and judgment of the court for the

release of full salary would not arise. Instead of ensuring that the direction aforesaid is carried out, respondent had ventured into observing that in

view of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court petitioner was allowed to withdraw charge allowance for the period he held the post of Admn.

Jamadar in the R.T.C., in addition to his own duties with effect from 5.1.1987 to 31.3.1988 under Rule 87, SubRule (B) of the J and K Civil

Service Rules. Here another fact may also be noted. Writ record appears to have been reconstructed. What was the stand of respondents in their

objections to the writ petition is also there on the record. They have tried to justify their own action and at the same time deny the claim of

petitioner. It was only after consideration of the whole case that the directions as aforesaid were given by the court while finally disposing of the

writ petition. Respondent is not correct when he claims to have considered the claim of petitioner in terms of the directions issued in the writ

petition. This is a clear cut case of wilful disobedience. When a reference is made to the statement of facts as well as the order passed, I am

satisfied that the respondent followed the direction of the court more in its breach than compliance. Ordinarily respondent needs to be dealt with

for such disobedience, still he is allowed another opportunity to do the needful by ensuring that the direction of the court issued in the writ petition

No. 112/89 is carried out strictly in its letter and spirit. After having done the needful, respondent is required to file an affidavit on or before 4th

Dec. 2000, failing which he will appear in person so that notice can be served upon him. He will also file his reply to the COA on that date.