Jharkhand High Court
Dharo Oraon And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand And Others ... ... ... on 1 February, 2018
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 651 of 2017
Dharo Oraon and Ors. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others ... ... Opposite Parties
-----------------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioners : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Raj, Advocate Mr. Apoorva Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Chanchal Jain, J.C. to A.G.
------------------
08/01.02.2018 By order dated 04.02.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4790 of 2016 two directions were issued to the opposite parties, which are :
(i) To pay salary to the petitioners till the month of January, 2017 and if they are continuing in service, they shall be paid their regular salary, and
(ii) The Secretary, Building Construction Department shall initiate the exercise for regularisation of the petitioners' services, within six months in terms of 2015 Regularisation Rules.
2. This contempt case was filed on 29.08.2017 and when it was taken up for hearing on 19.09.2017 an affidavit on behalf of O.P. Nos. 6 and 7 was tendered in the Court. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, the learned G.A. informed the Court that against the order passed by the Writ Court, Letters Patent Appeal was preferred by the State of Jharkhand. Thereafter, the matter was posted on 13.10.2017 when the following order was passed by this Court: "It is stated that against order dated 04.02.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No.4790 of 2016, L.P.A. No.496 of 2017 has been filed.
Mr. Amritansh Vats, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that Letters Patent Appeal is a mere design to frustrate the order passed by this Court on 04.02.2017. This Court has directed the respondents to make payment for the period they had actually worked. It is stated that, as a matter of fact, the Letters Patent Appeal is still lying in defects. It was listed before the Registrar (Judicial) on 06.10.2017 when further time for removing the defects was sought by the respondentState. It is contended that mere presentation of a memorandum of appeal vide L.P.A. No.496 of 2017 is not sufficient to avoid the consequences under the Contempt of Court's Act, 1971 against the opposite parties.
The opposite parties shall file their respective showcause reply.
Post the matter on 24.11.2017".
3. On 14.12.2017 when this case was again listed for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners raised an objection that L.P.A. No. 496 of 2017 filed by the respondentState was still lying in defects. On 15.01.2018, the Court was informed that Letters Patent Appeal was posted for hearing on 29.01.2018. In the meantime, matter was again listed for hearing on 11.01.2018 when at the request of the learned State counsel, it was adjourned for 15.01.2018.
4. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that on 29.01.2018 the appellantState of Jharkhand has sought adjournment before the Hon'ble Division Bench and accordingly, hearing of the Letters Patent Appeal was adjourned for 05.02.2018.
5. It is stated that the Letters Patent Appeal challenging order dated 04.02.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4790 of 2016 was filed on 15.09.2017, i.e. more than six months after the period of limitation for filing an appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Thereafter, the Letters Patent Appeal remained lying in defects for more than four months.
6. In the above facts, plea that Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the directions passed by the Writ Court and therefore this Court should not proceed with the present contempt case, cannot be countenanced in law. A right to appeal is a mere statutory right whereas in a contempt proceeding this Court is exercising a power under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. By no stretch of imagination a statutory right to appeal can be said to be a bar to exercise of constitutional power by this Court.
7. Order dated 04.02.2017 directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioners is based on the admission in the counteraffidavit filed on behalf of the respondentCorporation and while so, I find no justification for not complying with this direction of the Writ Court by the opposite parties.
8. In the above facts, before initiating a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Rule 392 and 393 of Jharkhand High Court Rules, opposite party no. 7 is directed to comply with the above part of the direction issued by the Writ Court and file a compliance report on or before 16.02.2018.
9. Post the matter on 16.02.2018.
10. Let a copy of the order be given to the learned counsels for the parties.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Tanuj/