AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Tarun Agarwala, J.—Since both contempt petitions raise a common issue, the same is being decided together.
Heard Mr. B. S. Negi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Rakesh Thapaliyal, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State.
The present contempt petition has been filed for the violation of the order dated 09.06.2005. The writ court in its order directed the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioners for appointment as Regular Seasonal Collection Amins / Peons under the 35% quota. The court also directed the Respondents to allow the Petitioners to work on the post of Seasonal Collection Amins without giving artificial break till their case for appointment as Regular Seasonal Collection Amins / Peons is considered.
It transpires that the Respondents considered the case for regularization and some of the Seasonal Collection Amins/ Peons were absorbed on the vacant posts, but, many of the Seasonal Collection Amins / Peons could not be absorbed and consequently, they were allowed to continue. The present contempt application was filed on account of the letter being written by the District Magistrate dated 16.03.2010 to the Commissioner stating that necessary permission may be given to appoint the Seasonal Collection Amins/ Peons w.e.f. 02.04.2010 after giving one day''s break.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that giving one day''s break amounts to giving artificial break and, therefore, there was a willful disobedience of the order of the court by the opposite party.
The then District Magistrate opposite party No. 2 has filed an affidavit indicating that posts of Seasonal Collection Amins have not been sanctioned by the State Government and that the sanctioned posts have been duly filled up and that the Petitioners are being allowed to work on the basis of the order of the High Court for which temporary permission is required to be obtained from the competent authority and, consequently, necessary permission for six months was asked for by the Respondent from his superior authority, namely, the Commissioner, which was duly granted. The break of one day was necessary for the purpose of seeking permission to permit the Petitioners to continue on the post on which they were working.
In the light of the aforesaid, the court finds that giving one day''s artificial break for the purpose of obtaining the necessary permission to allow the Petitioners to continue to work does not amount to any willful obedience of the order of the writ court. The contempt application is rejected.