Rama Pant vs D.S. Garbiyal

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The present contempt petition was filed by the petitioner before this Court on 30.06.2014, alleging non-compliance of the judgement dated 26.12.2012, as rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in WPSS No. 1427 of 2006, whereby, the coordinate Bench of this Court has issued the following directions:-

"Both the impugned order are kept in abeyance, and I direct the Principal Secretary of the Urban Development Department of the State of Uttarakhand to examine the issue. He will serve notice upon Nagar Palika Parishad as well as petitioner. While doing so, he will examine whether any Rule empowering the Chairman of Nagar Palika Parishad is there to take decision on the question of promotional issue. If he finds such Rule is in existence, then he will examine this matter on merit. If there is no such Rule, order passed by the Chairman as well as the Commissioner will stand recalled and set aside. In that situation, the Secretary shall take steps to specify the authority as mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Act and, if necessary, to take steps to frame the Rule as required under Subsection (2) of Section 73 of the Act. After this is done, if it is warranted, fresh decision shall be taken as per the order of the Court. Entire exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of communication of this order.

The writ petition is disposed of."

When notices were issued thereafter, the response has been filed by the respondents by way of counter affidavit and in the response affidavit, which has been filed by the respondents, particularly, in the averments, which has been made in para 9 of the response affidavit, which reads as under:-

"9. That in reply to the contents of para 12 of the contempt petition, it is submitted that the then Manager of Palika Inter College, Kathgodam/Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Haldwani vide its office order dated 31.10.1998 and 3.11.1998 had issued orders for promotion of Smt. Rama Pant to the post of Junior Clerk. It is important to mention here that at that relevant point of time, only two posts of Junior Clerk/Assistant Clerk were in existence/sanctioned. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the aforesaid institution, the procedure for appointment to the post of Clerk was to be made by promotion to the tune of 50% (quota by promotion) and 50% of post were to be filled up by direct recruitment. Since, in the aforesaid institution, one post was already filled up through promotion as such, the remaining one post ought to have been filled up by direct recruitment and the said post could not have been filled up by promotion and also in view of the fact that Smt. Rama Pant was junior to Shri Mohan Singh Mehra as such, the aforesaid promotion of Smt. Rama Pant was also illegal on the score that a junior person was promoted and the same has been found against the rules. As such, in pursuance and compliance of the direction of this Hon'ble Court dated 26.12.2012 a meeting was called upon in the office of Secretary, Urban Development Department and the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Nigam, Haldwani and Smt. Rama Pant were also informed with regards to the aforesaid meeting vide letter dated 11.4.2014 and they were heard and the matter was considered in the light of Section 73 of Nagar Palika Act, 1916. After hearing the parties and authorized representatives and after examining the matter, it was found that one the date of promotion of Smt. Rama Pant, there was no vacant post for promotion to the post of Junior Clerk and Smt. Rama Pant was also junior in the seniority list and senior to Smt. Rama Pant i.e. Sri Mohan Singh Mehra was working at the relevant point of time. As such, vide order dated 26.05.2014, the Secretary, Urban Development Department, had disposed of the matter by passing a reasoned and speaking order."

The respondents have contended that the judgement and order and the directions as given therein, has already been complied with. In order to fortify the said submissions made in para 9 of the counter affidavit a supplementary counter affidavit was also filed by the respondents on 09.04.2015, bringing on records the order passed thereafter by the competent authority in pursuance to the judgement of which the contempt is alleged.

In all practicality and on perusal of the counter affidavit as filed by the respondents, it seems that the judgement of this Court has been complied with and in case if the petitioner is dissatisfied with the decision taken by the competent authority concerned, which has been placed on record by way of counter affidavit as reflected from the counter affidavit, the petitioner, if so advised, may seek his appropriate remedies, if he is dissatisfied with the decision, given by the competent authority.

Accordingly, as far as the present contempt is concerned, in view of the aforesaid compliance already made, is directed to be closed. The notices thus issued to the respondent would stand discharged.