Allahabad High Court
Brij Kishore Lal (Retd. Naib Tehsildar) vs Smt. Manisha Trighatia, Ayukt Evam ... on 8 December, 2020
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 39 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2992 of 2020 Applicant :- Brij Kishore Lal (Retd. Naib Tehsildar) Opposite Party :- Smt. Manisha Trighatia, Ayukt Evam Sachiv Board Of Revenue Counsel for Applicant :- Kedar Nath Mishra Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Kedar Nath Mishra, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. P.K. Giri, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing opposite party.
This contempt application has been filed by applicant Brij Kishore La alleging wilful and intentional disobedience of order dated 17.4.2019, which reads as under:-
"Heard Sri Prashant Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Amar Nath Singh learned Standing Counsel.
Petitioner was initially appointed as a Collection Amin in the Revenue Department of the State on 15.07.1972. His services were regularized on 10.02.1976. It appears that petitioner was thereafter promoted on ad-hoc basis to the post of Naib Tahsildar on 17.12.1990. This ad-hoc promotion was for a fixed period and was followed with two subsequent orders of ad-hoc promotion. Petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992 wherein an interim order came to be passed by this Court on 03.12.1992, permitting the petitioner to continue as Naib Tehsildar until further orders or until availability of a regularly selected candidates. It appears that the petitioner again approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.18515 of 1994, which was disposed of vide following order dated 18.12.1997:-
"The petitioner has prayed that he be permitted to continue on the post of Naib Tehsildar and be regularized. In this connection, he may make a representation to the authority concerned who will decide the same within three months thereafter in accordance with law.
With these observation, this petition is disposed of finally."
It is alleged that though the direction was issued by this Court to consider petitioner's claim for regularization but his claim has not been examined as per law and he has attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2011. Petitioner thereafter made an application for grant of promotional pay-scale and other service benefits on the basis of his working on the post of Naib Tehsildar. Such claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the Commissioner and Secretary, Board of Revenue, U.P. vide his order dated 05.09.2013. This order records that since petitioner continued to work under the interim orders of this Court and he was never regularized, as such benefit of selection grade and promotional grade etc. cannot be extended to him. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner is before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that claim of petitioner for being regularized on the promoted post of Naib Tehsildar stood crystallized by virtue of the provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad-hoc Promotions (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1988 as amended from time to time. It is submitted that by virtue of subsequent amendment introduced in Rule 4 with effect from 20.12.2001, vide notification of the same date, the services of the petitioner were liable to be regularized on the basis of his ad-hoc promotion. It is stated that respondents ought to have considered petitioner's claim for regularization on the promoted post and thereafter all benefits due and payable to petitioner ought to have been extended.
Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the fact that petitioner's claim for regularization of his ad-hoc services has not been considered by the competent authority as per the notification dated 20.12.2001, so far. It is, however, submitted that since continuance of petitioner was under the interim orders of this Court, as such he is not entitled to any relief.
A perusal of the order passed by this Court on 18.12.1997 in Writ Petition No.18515 of 1994 would go to show that a direction had already been issued by this Court permitting the petitioner to make a representation for being regularized on the post of Naib Tehsildar. Petitioner appears to have represented in the matter but the Board of Revenue rejected petitioner's claim at that stage, vide order dated 29.12.2000, on the ground that persons senior to petitioner were yet to be regularized. Records further reveal that a fresh exercise was directed to be undertaken for regularization of Naib Tehsildar, promoted on ad-hoc basis, on 08.02.2002, after the Regularization Rules of 1988, referred to above, were amended vide notification dated 20.12.2001. Details were called for from the concerned districts, and though petitioner's claim was forwarded by District Magistrate, Deoria in April, 2004 but thereafter, the matter has remained pending. No orders in respect of petitioner's claim for regularization appear to have been passed, till date. Once the Regularization Rules of 1988 stood modified vide notification dated 20.12.2001 and the cut off dates were extended so as to include all promotions made on ad-hoc basis on or before 30.06.1998, who were continuing in service on the date of the notification i.e. 20.12.2001, the claim of the petitioner for being regularized in service has to be considered. It would not be open for the respondents to deny consideration to petitioner's claim only on the ground that his services were not regularized.
In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon respondent no.1 to consider petitioner's claim for regularization, on the post of Naib Tehsildar, as per the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad-hoc Promotions Rules as amended on 20.12.2001, within a period of four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Based upon the orders passed upon petitioner's claim for regularization on the post of Naib Tehsildar, the State shall further consider grant of other service benefits, including selection grade/promotion grade etc., as may be due and payable to petitioner in accordance with law. For the purposes of a fresh consideration of petitioner's claim, in the light of the aforesaid observations and directions, the order impugned dated 03.11.2013 stands quashed."
Perusal of order dated 17.4.2019 goes to show that the claim of petitioner for regularization on the post of Naib Tahsildrar as per provisions of Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Ad-hoc Promotions Rules as amended on 20.12.2001 was directed to be looked into by the concerned Authority. It was further provided that in case grievance of the petitioner is accepted, then consequential benefits like grant of promotional grade, selection grade as may be due and payable to the petitioner in accordance with Rules shall also be paid.
In compliance of order dated 17.4.2019, petitioner submitted a certified copy of order dated 17.4.2019.
However, as no consequential action was taken, applicant approached this Court by means of present contempt application. Notice was issued to the opposite party Smt. Manisha Trighatia, vide order dated 7.9.2020. Pursuant to aforesaid order, a discharge application has been been filed by opposite party Smt. Manisha Trighatia, Commissioner and Secretary, Board of Revenue, U.P. along with an affidavit of compliance. Along with the affidavit of compliance, order dated 14.10.2020 has also been appended which was passed by opposite party No. 1. On the basis of aforesaid, Mr. P.K. Giri fairly submits that the order of Writ Court stands complied, with the passing of the order dated 14.10.2020. He, therefore, submits that no further cause of action survives with the applicant to pursue the present contempt application.
Mr. K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for applicant submits that the order of Writ Court has not been complied with in letter and spirit.
Be that as it may, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, cannot sit in appeal over an order passed by authority which was passed in compliance of the order of Writ Court.
In view of above, no further cause of action survives with the applicant to pursue present contempt application.
It is, accordingly, consigned to records.
Order Date :- 8.12.2020 HSM