AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By Hon’ble Mr. D.S. Mahra, Member (J)
Learned counsel for the applicats states as under:-
This contempt petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 3.3.2020 passed by the Hon’ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court in WP (C) No. 598/2020 in C.M. No. 1288/2020, by which the Hon’ble High Court passed the following orders:-
“It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are working on academic arrangement basis since long. Administrative officer, Govt. Dental College & Hospital, Srinagar, vide communication dated 08.04.2019 addressed to OSD Advisor (K) to H.E Governor Jammu and Kashmir, recommended consideration of candidates for permanent absorption on sustentative posts, who have already completed six years' on Academic Arrangement Basis (AAB).
On the aforesaid recommendation, the Government constituted a Committee, which met on 29.11.2018 and took inter alia following, decision which is reproduced as under:
"The Principal/Dean informed the Advisor about the paucity of manpower including doctors and trained paramedics. The need for the creation of posts and the upgradation of various posts also came in the discussion. Moreover, people who are working on Academic arrangement for more than 06 years will have to be regularized as they form the backbone of Anesthesia department and Nursing Staff."
It is submitted that the General Administration Department (GAD) vide impugned communication dated 11.02.2020, has decided to make new appointments in place of the petitioners, though the petitioners have already been recommended for their regular extension.
WP(C) No. 598/2020 CM No: 1288/2020 Be that as it may, notice returnable within four weeks. Notice in the CM as well returnable within the same period. List on 06.05.2020. In the meanwhile, subject to objections and till next date of hearing before the Bench, respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to perform their duties. Respondents are further directed to consider the release of legitimately earned salary of the petitioners.”
Hon’ble High Court, Jammu and Kashmir vide order dated 9.9.2020, transferred the aforesaid Writ Petition to Registrar, CAT, Jammu Bench for further proceedings.
The case was listed before CAT, Jammu Bench on 15.1.2001 and CAT, Jammu Bench passed the following orders:-
“Admit, Counter Affidavit be filed within 4 weeks. Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, may be filed within 3 weeks thereafter.
Put up the file on 12.5.2021.
Interim direction dated 3.3.2020 to continue till the next date of hearing.”
The case was again transferred from CAT, Jammu Bench to CAT, Srinagar Bench. This Bench vide order dated 21.2.2022, heard the learned counsel for parties at length and passed the following orders:-
Sufficient time has been given to the respondents to respond but unfortunately, the salary is yet to be released, we, therefore, direct respondent No.2 (Principle, Dental College, Srinagar), to ensure by the next date of hearing that either the payment of the dues is made or they give a categorical statement to the Tribunal that nothing is due to be paid. In case, none of these actions is taken by respondent no.2, we direct respondent No.2 to be present before this Tribunal on the next date of hearing i.e. on 10.03.2022.
Learned counsel for the respondents filed compliance report in compliance of the order dated 10.3.2021 passed by this Tribunal, in which it is stated that keeping in view the aforesaid direction, the budgetary provision required has been worked out as Rs. 70.00 lakhs approximately and the Administrative Department has been requested vide letter dated 25.8.2021, to consider for releasing the amount mentioned above in order to meet the aforesaid demand and also to convey further necessary instructions in the matter. It is further stated that engagement of the applicants were initially for a period of three years and maximum period for which an appointee under the said rules could be continued is six years at the most , that too after the administrative department, by the expiry of initial three years, grants approval for their extension for a further period of three years. This condition is also subject to the agreement executed by the applicants which provide that the engagement of applicants is for a period of one year or till the posts are filled up by the competent authority on regular basis through DPC/JKSSRB, which ever is earlier. The same condition is reflected in every order of engagement issued both at the time of initial engagement as well as when extension for a period of one year is granted. In para 9 of the compliance report, it is stated that respondents have never recommended the case of the applicants for their continuance beyond the period of engagement as the same would be ultra virus to the basic engagement rules of the applicant like SRO 384 and 409. Hence the question of regularization of services of the applicant does not arise at all.
We have heard learned counsel for both the parties.
We find that the present contempt petition has been filed by the applicants against the interim relief given by the Hon’ble High Court on 3.3.2020 and this Tribunal’s order dated 21.2.2022, by which this Tribunal observed as under:-
Sufficient time has been given to the respondents to respond but unfortunately, the salary is yet to be released, we, therefore, direct respondent No.2 (Principle, Dental College, Srinagar), to ensure by the next date of hearing that either the payment of the dues is made or they give a categorical statement to the Tribunal that nothing is due to be paid. In case, none of these actions is taken by respondent no.2, we direct respondent No.2 to be present before this Tribunal on the next date of hearing i.e. on 10.03.2022.
In compliance of the above directions, the respondents have filed the compliance report dated 10.3.2022, explaining the action taken by them and pleading therein that no contempt is made out , as the respondents have already taken action on the directions of the Hon’ble High Court as well as this Tribunal’s order.
In the case of Quantum Securities Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. reported in SSC 2015 (10) 602, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
23)We are also of the considered view that when the issue on merits is seized of by the original court in civil suit/proceedings and rights of the parties are still not decided on merits then it is not proper for this Court to probe into the facts and record any finding on any of the issues arising out of collateral proceedings such as the one here else our observation may cause prejudice to the parties while prosecuting their case before the original court on merits.
24)It is for these reasons we are of the considered opinion that it would be apposite to request the learned Single Judge to decide Notice of Motion No. 1553/2013 renumbered as 488/2014 arising out of Civil Suit No. 677/2013 renumbered as 284/2014 on merits in accordance with law preferably within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Till it is decided, we are inclined to stay the contempt proceedings out of which these appeals arise. After the disposal of the Notice of Motion, the contempt proceedings may be decided in accordance with law including its maintainability etc.
25)Needless to say, since we have refrained from giving finding on merits on any of the issues and hence the concerned Courts, which are seized of the civil suit/proceedings in question, would decide the matter on merits strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by our observations made herein.
26)We also make it clear that all the issues which were argued in these appeals including the issue as to whether the remedy of the appellants lie in filing statutory appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act against the impugned orders etc. are kept open for being decided at the appropriate stage, if occasion arises.
As may be seen from the reply of the respondents, there does not appear to be any willful disobedience of the order of Hon’ble High Court as well as this Tribunal. The respondents have only expressed the constraint they are facing in complying with the order. Respondents have also pleaded for final hearing of the main case, so as to settle the issue once for all.
In view of the facts given above, we find that there has been no willful disobedience on the part of the respondents. Accordingly, Contempt Petition is dismissed.
Notices are discharged.