Vinod Kumar vs Deepak Sanan and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—Petitioner is complaining of violation of the Court order. Annexure P-1 is the order of the Court. It was directed that "in case there is work available with the first Respondent, the Respondents will engage the Petitioners in preference to fresh recruits." The first Respondent is HIMUDA. It appears that pursuant to the judgment in view of the availability of the work at Mandi/Parwanoo, the Petitioner was engaged. However, the first Respondent issued a communication that the engagement of the Petitioner was wrong since before any such engagement, orders should have been sought from the Government. It is the submission of the Petitioner that he had come from far flung area, he is a poor man and he is now left without anything. It is further submitted that there is work available at Mandi/Parwanoo and yet the Petitioner is not engaged. The judgment, as pointed out by the learned senior counsel, would show that the availability of work alone does not clothe the Petitioner with any right much less enforceable right. In case, the available work is sought to be executed at Mandi/Parwanoo, in the process, the Petitioner should be given preference. Therefore, any question of violation of judgment arises only if fresh persons have been engaged at Mandi/Parwanoo or for that matter at any other place. This is not the case of the Petitioner. Therefore, we do not find any contumacious conduct on the part of the Respondents. The contempt petition is hence dismissed.

However, we make an observation that in case there is work available at Mandi/Parwanoo, there is no reason why the Government should stand in the way of such works being executed. In case of availability of the work as already been reported by the concerned Field Officers, the Government shall not stand in the way of such works being executed and on the contrary should take steps to see that the work is executed in time.