Sh. Ram Singh, Sh. Om Parkash and Sh. Sham Singh vs Sh. V. C. Pharka, I.A.S., Secretary (Horticulture) to the Govt. of H.P. Shimla-2 and Sh. R.S. Gupta, I.A.S., Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.

Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.—The complaint herein is that the respondents have failed to implement the judgment dated 19th May, 2010 in CWP (T) No. 3738/2008. It has been claimed that the respondents being highly placed officers ought to have obeyed the judgment of this Court in letter and spirit and failure on their part to do so, amounts to lower down the dignity and the majesty of the Court. They have thus been sought to be tried under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and punished appropriately for having committed the contempt of Court by violating the aforesaid judgment. It is only the 2nd respondent, who was put to notice of this petition. He, on entering appearance, has filed reply tendering therein his sincere and unqualified apology, at the very outset.

The stand taken in the reply, however, is that the petitioners are not amongst 15 disengaged striking daily waged workers in whose case the then Deputy Commissioner, Kangra had agreed for their adjustment against the available vacancies as per Resolution dated 24.10.1997 referred to in the judgment stated to be violated. List of those 15 disengaged labourers of Nagrota Bagwan Development Block, to whom the resolution in question applies is Annexure-1 to the reply. The communication, Annexure-2 pertains to the deployment of 4 labourers out of 15, whereas the list, Annexure-3 (colly.) pertains to the remaining disengaged labourers who were to be reemployed on daily wage basis pursuant to the resolution referred to in the judgment stated to be violated in other Development Blocks.

In the supplementary affidavit, also a similar stand has been taken by respondent No. 2. Additionally, while submitting that the petitioners are not amongst those 15 disengaged labourers, to whom the resolution in question pertains, comparative charts, Annexures-III & IV of the days during which those 15 labourers and the petitioners had worked on daily waged basis, has also been pressed into service. While pointing out that there are other disengaged labourers like the petitioners who are also not covered under the resolution in question, their particulars along with the days for which they worked, Annexure-V, has also been brought on record obviously to persuade this Court to take a view that it is not the petitioners alone but several other similarly situate persons, who were also engaged under the MGNREGA but could not be re-engaged on the closure of the project, namely, "Kangra Towards Self Reliance by 2000 A.D".

On the other hand, in rejoinder the plea raised by the petitioners is that vide judgment in question the 2nd respondent was directed to consider the case of the petitioners also for their re-engagement on daily wage basis and regularisation being similarly situated to those 15 labourers to whom the resolution in question pertains. But the direction to meet out similar treatment to the petitioners has not been implemented by the said respondent and to the contrary vide order, Annexure P-2 made an offer to them to avail 100 days employment under MGNREGA scheme qua which the said respondent had nothing to do because the employment under the said scheme was otherwise also available to them. It has further been submitted that when similarly situated persons on the closure of the aforesaid project were re-engaged initially on daily waged basis and thereafter regularised in accordance with the directions of this Court, the respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioners being similarly situated.

It is in this backdrop, we have heard the learned counsel on both sides and also gone through the record.

Before adverting to the question as to whether the respondents have committed a contempt of Court or not, we deem it proper to appreciate the directions of this Court in the judgment, Annexure P-1, which reads as follows:

According to Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, subsequent to the filing of the instant petition, in terms of Resolution dated 24.10.1997 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, the petitioners as also other similarly situated persons were to be adjusted against the available vacancies according to their seniority. This resolution is on record. Inspite of opportunity afforded to the State no information is forthcoming.

Resolution in question reads as under:-

RESOLUTION

In the meeting with the representatives of striking dis-engaged labourers on the completion of project period of Integrated Afforestation Eco-development Project/ Floriculture Project in Nagrota Bagwan Development Block and General Secretary, Rashtriya Mazdoor Congress and others, it was decided that the 15 dis-engaged labourers will be adjusted against the available vacancies according to their seniority within one month. The office bearers of the Kisan Mazdoor Congress agreed to withdraw the labourers strike with immediate effect.

Sd/- Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala.

In the circumstances, it is directed that the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra shall look into the matter and consider the matter. He shall take into account the fact as to whether this resolution has been applied in the case of other similarly situated persons and needs to be applied in the case of petitioners or not. If ultimately it is found that petitioners were to be adjusted in terms of the said resolution, Deputy Commissioner, Kangra shall take action and do the needful, in accordance with Law. Decision be positively taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

It is seen that 15 disengaged labourers of the project, namely, "Kangra Towards Self Reliance by 2000 A.D" whose services were disengaged on the closure of the project were striking under the banner of Kisan Mazdoor Congress. The then Deputy Commissioner, Kangra during negotiation with the office bearers of such Mazdoor Union had agreed for adjustment of 15 striking disengaged labourers against available vacancies according to their seniority within one month. A resolution to this effect was passed on 24.10.1997. Learned Single Judge after taking note of the resolution had directed the 2nd respondent to consider as to whether the said resolution was applicable in the case of other similarly situated persons and needs to be applied in the case of the petitioners or not. As per the stand taken by the 2nd respondent, the claim of the petitioners in the present case is not covered under the resolution in question nor they are amongst those 15 disengaged labourers. If it is so, the remaining part of the judgment which pertains to adjustment of the petitioners in terms of the said resolution within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy thereof, looses its significance because in the light of the specific averments in the affidavit/supplementary affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, the claim of the petitioners being not covered under the resolution in question. Hence, it cannot be said that they are similarly situated to those 15 labourers to whom the resolution pertains. There is no direction of this Court that the petitioners are similarly situated to those 15 labourers and that they be also firstly re-engaged on daily wage basis and thereafter regularised. Therefore, such contentions in counter affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners hardly carry any force nor in contempt proceedings such type of claim, not supported by the judgment sought to be violated, can be entertained. However, it is relevant to point out here that consequent upon the judgment, Annexure P-1 to the writ petition, the 2nd respondent had considered the matter and the petitioners were offered employment in Dhoran Panchayat or adjoining Panchayats under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee (MGNREGS) vide letter dated 18.10.2010, Annexure P-2, but it appears that it is they who themselves opted not to join duties pursuant to this letter. Therefore, when the said respondent had considered the case of the petitioners in the light of the judgment of this Court, we do not find any contumacious conduct on the part of the respondents. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the COPC is dismissed. Rule is discharged.