Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Unknown vs Umadevi1 Within A Period Of Ten (10) ... on 5 August, 2022
Author: C. Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Contempt Case No.735 of 2020
ORDER:- (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar) The present Contempt Case came to be filed alleging willful and deliberate violation of the order, dated 22.10.2019 passed in W.P.No.14653 of 2019 wherein this Court directed the respondents therein to implement the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A.No.2343 of 2018, dated 11.10.2018, within a period of eight (8) to ten (10) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
2. A perusal of the order in W.P.No.14653 of 2019 would show that the Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. holding that the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services and accordingly directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders in terms of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi1 within a period of ten (10) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of that order. It would be appropriate to extract that portion of the order, which is, as under:-
1 2006 (4) SCC 1 2 CPK, J & CMR, J C.C.No.735 of 2020 "5. It is to be noticed from the facts of the Writ Petition referred above that the employees therein are working from 1990 onwards and the applicants in the present case are working from 1989 onwards. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the applicants are similarly situated to that of the applicants in the above Writ Petition and therefore, they are entitled for the similar relief.
6. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider cases of the applicants for regularization of their services and shall pass appropriate orders in terms of the Judgment referred above (Umadevi's case), within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order".
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the Tribunal directed the authorities to pass orders keeping in view Para 53 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi's case, but the authorities have not dealt with the said judgment while rejecting their request.
4. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi's case was infact referred to while rejecting the request of the petitioners, and if the petitioners are not satisfied with the reasoning given therein, it would be a separate cause of action, but it would not be a Contempt of Court.
5. In order to appreciate the same, it would be appropriate to refer to the proceedings dated 30.03.2021 issued by the Special Chief Secretary to Government wherein the request of the petitioners for regularizing their services 3 CPK, J & CMR, J C.C.No.735 of 2020 came to be rejected. A perusal of the order dated 30.03.2021 would clearly disclose that Para 53 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi's case was infact referred to. Not only the judgment of Umadevi but also the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and other2, wherein the orders passed in W.P.No.14653 of 2019 etc. were referred to. It would be appropriate to extract Para 4 of the said proceedings dated 30.03.2021, wherein the judgment of Umadevi was referred to, which is as under:-
"4. Further, on observation it is noticed that the purport of the judgment dated 19.09.2017 passed by High Court in W.P.No.27217 of 2017 is that consider for regularization subject to satisfying the criteria laid down in para 53 of Uma Devi case.
The significance of State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi and others, dated 10.04.2006 reads as follows:-
"The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases S.V. Narayanappa and R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, and the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a One Time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed".
2 (1992) 4 SCC 118 4 CPK, J & CMR, J C.C.No.735 of 2020
6. After referring to the Para 53 of the judgment in Umadevi's case, the authorities considered the ratio laid down in Piara Singh's case which was much prior to Umadevi's case. The order shows that pursuant to the above judgment, the Government has formulated the scheme for regularization as one time measure vide G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994 and that the State Government has enacted law regulating the appoints to Public Services and for Rationalization of the Staff Pattern and Pay Structure, so as to streamline the recruitment through employment Exchange. The order also speaks about one time measure for regularization of irregular appointments through G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 in pursuance of Piara Singh's case and also the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. Manjula Bhashini and others vs. The Managing Director, A.P. Women's Co-operative Finance Corporation Ltd and another [Civil Appeal No.3702 of 2006, dated 06.07.2009]. It is to be noted that the petitioners herein, though appointed prior to cut-off date i.e. 25.11.1993, did not comply the requirements of five years of service as contemplated in the said G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning (FW.PC-III) Department dated 22.04.1994 and also the provisions of Act 2 of 1994.
5
CPK, J & CMR, J C.C.No.735 of 2020
7. In view of the above, the respondents herein rejected the claim of the petitioners. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the judgment in Umadevi's case was never considered may not be correct. If really, the petitioners are of the view that the judgment of the Umadevi's case was not considered in a manner, in which, it should have been considered, remedy lies elsewhere, but definitely not in this Contempt Case. It is well established that in a Contempt Case, the Court has to see whether there was any willful or deliberate violation of the order impugned in the Contempt Case. In the instant case, as observed by us, earlier there was no deliberate and intentional violation of the order. On the other hand, the authorities considered the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court including Umadevi's case and thereafter the G.O.Ms.No.212 issued by the Government dated 22.04.1994 putting the cut-off date as 25.11.1993. Since none of the petitioners fulfilled the requirements of G.O.Ms.No.212, the authorities rejected their case. If the reason given by the authorities is incorrect or contrary to any statute, the petitioners ought to have availed the remedy available under law.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, we see no grounds to hold that there was any deliberate and intentional violation of the order. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. 6
CPK, J & CMR, J C.C.No.735 of 2020 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR _______________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: .08.2022 MS 7 CPK, J & CMR, J C.C.No.735 of 2020 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Contempt Case No.735 of 2020 (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar) Date: .08.2022 MS