AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri P.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the applicant.
According to the applicant, the applicant filed Writ Petition No. 11522 of 1992 (Yogendra Nath Tripathi v. Jalkal Abhiyanta Nagar Palika Basti and Ors.) wherein by an order dated 17.02.2010 the writ petition was disposed of finally in the same terms and conditions as the order dated 08.12.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 10509 of 1997. The order dated 08.12.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 10509 of 1997 has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit filed alongwith this contempt petition.
A perusal of the order indicates that the Respondents No. 1 & 2 of that writ petition were directed to consider the case of appointment of the Petitioner under Rule 31 of the U.P. Palika (Centralized Service) Rules, 1966, within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order passed by the Court and further to accord all the benefits of the Petitioner which have been extended to the persons of the same list. Learned Counsel states that against the aforesaid order dated 08.12.2005, Special Appeal was preferred which was rejected and the Respondents therein went up to the Apex Court where their SLP (SLP) was also dismissed and whereafter they regularized the services of the Petitioner of Writ Petition No. 10509 of 1997.
Learned Counsel states that in the present case also after the direction of the Writ Court in same terms and conditions as given in Writ Petition No. 10509 of 1997 the opposite parties have been directed to consider the claim of the Petitioners herein. He states that by the order dated 12.10.2010 filed as Annexure No. 9 to the affidavit, supporting this contempt application, the opposite parties have rejected the claim of the Petitioner on the ground that in the earlier case the order dated 08.12.2005 passed by the Writ Court in Writ Petition No. 10509 of 1997 was affirmed by the Apex Court and hence they extended the benefit to the Petitioners of that writ petition. According to learned Counsel, in the present case the opposite party has rejected the representation of the Petitioner by the order dated 12.10.2010 and, therefore, it is a disobedience of the directions passed by the Writ Court.
The similarity which is sought to be argued before this Court between the present applicant and the applicant of the Writ Petition No. 10509 of 1997 is that when the order of the Writ Court was affirmed by the Apex Court the Respondents granted regularization to those Petitioners whereas in the present case the Writ Court has issued the same directions to consider the regularization of these Petitioners but their case has been rejected. Hence, the contempt is made out.
Having considered the submission of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record, in the case of Writ Petition No. 10509 of 1997 the averments are that it was challenged upto the Apex court but the judgment of the Writ Court was not set aside and hence the opposite party complied with the judgment by giving regularization to the Petitioner of that writ petition upon consideration of their cause.
In the present case, a similar order has been passed for consideration of the cause of the Petitioners herein and while considering the cause the opposite party has not accepted the claim of the Petitioners and has rejected the same by the order dated 12.10.2010, filed as Annexure No. 9 to the affidavit, supporting this contempt petition. Once the Respondents have taken a stand for reasons as recorded therein this Court in its contempt jurisdiction cannot assess the legality or validity of the order whereby the claim of the Petitioner has been rejected. In case, it is the case of the Petitioner that the order is illegal it is for them to avail the appropriate remedy available to them in law. But this Court on the basis of a petition of other Petitioners of the year 1997 cannot set aside the order dated 12.10.2010 in its contempt jurisdiction.
For the aforesaid reasons, no contempt is made out for the reason that the Writ Court required the opposite party to consider the cause of the Petitioners herein and such consideration has been made. In case, the applicants are aggrieved by the order dated 12.10.2010 (Annexure No. 9 to the affidavit) they are always at liberty to avail the remedy available to them in law. The contempt petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Notices, if any, issued are discharged.
No order is passed as to costs.