Suresh Kumar Dave vs Gajanand Sharma and Others

Sangeet Lodha, J—This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging disobedience of order dated 11.3.14 passed by the writ court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9043/11.

The petitioner, who was initially appointed on 1.11.88 as Store Keeper in the respondent-Rajasthan State Road Development & Construction Limited (for short "RSRDC") was discharged from service on 30.6.91. The petitioner raised industrial dispute, which was adjudicated by the Labour Court vide award dated 4.7.96 passed in Industrial Dispute Case No. 12/93, whereby the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service. The challenge to the award by the RSRDC by way of writ petition before this court failed and thereafter, the petitioner was working continuously as Store Keeper. The petitioner preferred the writ petition before this court seeking directions to regularise his services from the date he completed 10 years service or from the date, similarly situated employees were so regularised in service.

The writ petition preferred by the petitioner was allowed by this court in light of the decision in the case of ''Jai Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.- SBCWP No. 2062/2001 and ''Bhawani Singh Solanki v. State & Ors.''-SBCWP No. 11166/2011 alongwith other connected matters. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

"3. Both the learned counsels also relied upon the judgment of coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Jai Singh v. State of Rajasthan ors. - SBCWP No. 2062/2001 in this regard. This Court also in a similar bunch of matters listed today has taken a similar view in the cases of Bhawani Singh Solanki v. State & ors.-SBCWP No. 11166/2011 along with other connected matters.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed in same terms. No Costs. Copy of the order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith."

In the first instance, the respondent filed a reply to the contempt petition taking the stand that subject to the decision of DB Special Appeal No. 55/15 preferred by the RSRDC before this court, aggrieved by the order disobedience whereof is alleged in the contempt petition, the petitioner has been accorded regular appointment on probation for a period of two years, vide order dated 16.7.15. A copy whereof is placed on record as Annexure R/4. The condition incorporated in the order regarding the appointment on probation was objected to by the petitioner by filing a rejoinder thereto. Later, the respondent-contemnor by way of additional submissions, placed on record a copy of the order dated 24.7.15 (Annexure R/7), deleting the condition of appointment on probation. However, in the said orders dated 16.7.15 and 24.7.15, there was yet another condition incorporated in the following terms:

"The services are liable to be discharged at any time but in case the candidate desires to resign he will be required to be given one month notice."

Today, by way of additional submissions, the respondents have placed on record dated 6.8.15 wherein, the condition incorporated as aforesaid also stands deleted.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in Bhawani Singh''s case, the court had issued directions that the services of the employees right from the date of their initial appointment and notional period of their break in service during the illegal retrenchment/termination should be taken as continuous period for computing the period of qualifying service for pension purposes. Learned counsel would submit that no such relief has been extended to the petitioner by the respondents.

It is pertinent to note that in Bhawani Singh''s case, the submissions made by the petitioners therein in this regard were not strongly objected to by the respondents therein and accordingly, directions were issued by this court as aforesaid. It is not disputed before this court that Jai Singh is an employee of the respondent-RSRDC similarly situated qua the petitioner, who has also not been extended the relief as claimed by the petitioner. It is also not disputed before this court that the petitioner has been extended the relief treating his case to be at par with Jai Singh. In this view of the matter, the order disobedience whereof is alleged in the contempt petition stands substantially complied with and therefore, this court is not inclined to proceed with the contempt proceedings any further.

Accordingly, the contempt proceedings are dropped. The notices are discharged.