Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Shakuntala Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 14 August, 2023
Bench: Tashi Rabstan, Rahul Bharti
S.No.17 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
......
LPA No.27/2023
CM(1385/2023)
Date of order : 14.08.2023
Shakuntala Singh
....... Appellant(s)
Through: Ms. Deepika Mahajan, Advocate
Versus
Union of India and others
.........Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
ORDER
14.08.2023
1. Instant Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant- Shakuntala Singh against an order dated 18.03.2015 of learned Single Bench passed in writ petition-SWP No. 1397/2013 titled "Shakuntla Singh Vs. Union of India and others" to the extent of direction for grant of relief of back-wages for the period 09.06.2001 to 22.10.2007.
2. In terms of said order dated 18.03.2015 the learned Single Bench has passed the following direction:-
"For all that said and discussed above, this writ petition is partially allowed by providing that the dependents of the deceased Inspector late Shri Ram Parkash Singh are 1 LPA No.27/2023 entitled to all the monetary benefits including pension/family pension at the rate provided under the applicable services rules, taking it as a case of deceased having died in harness and not retired on superannuation. Likewise, benefits of compassionate appointment in accordance with rules shall also be available to the dependents and by a writ of mandamus respondents are directed to provide all such benefits to the petitioner/dependents of the deceased in accordance with applicable service rules. Relief in regard to grant of back wages, however, is refused."
3. When this matter had come up before this Bench on 24.07.2023, the then learned CGSC appearing on behalf of the respondents produced a copy of communication dated 20.05.2017 issued by the Commandant-32 BN CRPF, whereby the issuing authority has requested the writ petitioner-appellant to express willingness for compassionate appointment for the posts of ASI/Steno and HC(M) and directed her to report at GC, CRPF, Jalandhar (Punjab) during the recruitment of ASI (Steno/HC) scheduled to be held from 15.07.2016. However, Smt. Shakuntala Singh (the appellant-writ petitioner) wife of Inspector/GD, late Shri Ram Parkash Singh vide letter dated 09.07.2016 had intimated that her daughter, namely, Rashmi Singh may be considered for the post of SI/Crypto as per her qualifications. The said communication vide order dated 24.07.2023 was taken on record.
4. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI, has stated at the Bar that writ petitioner-appellant had also earlier filed a contempt petition, bearing CPSW No.425/2015, for non-compliance of judgement dated 18.03.2015 passed in SWP No.1397/2013.
5. Record of aforesaid contempt was summoned from the Registry. 2 LPA No.27/2023
6. We have gone through the contempt record, perusal whereof reveals that vide order dated 01.10.2018, the said contempt petition came to be disposed of by learned Single Bench observing as under: -
"8. I have considered the submissions made and perused the record carefully. The petition is for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for wilful disobedience and deliberate defiance of order dated 18.03.2015 passed by this Court in SWP No.1397/2013. The directions contained in the order dated 18.03.2015, have their genesis in the earlier round of litigation initiated by the respondents by way of SWP No.S- 650/2005 and the judgment of Division Bench dated 22.11.2011 passed in LPA(SW) No. 199/2011. The claim of the petitioner for back wages for the period deceased had remained unauthorisedly absent and out of action because of order of dismissal was declined by the writ Court. The petitioner, however, was held entitled to all the monetary benefits including pension/family pension at the rates provided under the applicable service rules taking it as a case of deceased having died in harness and not retired on superannuation. Additionally, there was a command issued to the respondents to consider grant of compassionate appointment in favour of the dependants of the deceased employee in accordance with rules. So far the first part of order is concerned, the same has been complied with by the respondents, who have released all the monetary benefits including pension/family pension. This is so stated by respondents very categorically in the compliance report/statement of facts filed on behalf of the respondents. The issue as to whether the pension and other monetary benefits granted to the petitioner are in accordance with rules or not cannot be made subject matter of adjudication in the contempt proceedings. It is the stand of the respondents that whatever monetary benefits are payable to the petitioner in accordance with the applicable rules, have been paid. This Court has to accept that the statement and in case the petitioner is aggrieved, he may have fresh cause to agitate. What rules were applicable to the case of the petitioner and what amount should have been paid are all disputed question of facts which cannot be agitated or adjudicated upon in the contempt proceedings. Regarding compassionate appointment, the respondents in their statement of facts very categorically stated that the case of compassionate appointment of the daughter of the petitioner is under consideration. She had applied for the post of Sub Inspector, which the respondents claim, is not available in the compassionate quota and therefore, she has been advised to give her willingness for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial). It is stated that the daughter of the petitioner has not responded to the aforesaid communication of the 3 LPA No.27/2023 respondents, and therefore, her case for compassionate appointment has not been considered further. Once the willingness as asked for by the respondents is submitted by the daughter of the petitioner, the respondents shall issue appropriate order of appointment on compassionate basis in her favour.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any deliberate or wilful defiance of the directions passed by this Court which would necessitate invoking of the contempt jurisdiction against the respondents. This contempt petition is, accordingly, dismissed leaving it, however, open to the petitioner to agitate her grievance by taking appropriate legal recourse."
7. Regarding compassionate appointment, the respondent-UOI, in their statement of facts filed in the contempt petition, has very categorically stated that the case of compassionate appointment of the daughter of the writ petitioner-appellant is under consideration. She has applied for the post of Sub Inspector which as per the Respondent- UOI's, claim is not available under the compassionate quota and, therefore, she has been advised to give her willingness for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial). It is stated that the daughter of the writ petitioner-appellant has not responded to the aforesaid communication of the respondent-UOI, and therefore, her case for compassionate appointment has not been considered further. However, learned Single Bench seized of said contempt petition has not decided with regard to compassionate appointment in view of the statement made by learned counsel for the Union of India that the case for compassionate appointment of the daughter of the writ petitioner-appellant is under consideration meaning thereby the issue of compassionate appointment was in currency of consideration and not closed.
4 LPA No.27/2023
8. Respondent-Union of India has not even challenged the order of learned Single Bench dated 18.03.2015 which means that it is admitting the claim of the writ petitioner-appellant to the extent of grant of compassionate appointment. Learned Single Bench in his order has specially directed the respondent-UOI to provide all the benefits to the writ petitioner/dependents of the deceased employee in accordance with the applicable service rules.
9. Instant appeal has been filed by the appellant as an aggrieved writ petitioner to the extent of non-grant of relief of back-wages for the period 09.06.2001 to 22.10.2007 which relief though claimed but the learned Single Bench vide order dated 18.03.2015 refused to grant. Insofar as compassionate appointment is concerned, this Court vide an order dated 24.07.2023, has directed the respondent-UOI to come up with the appointment order of Rashmi Singh daughter of Smt. Shakuntala Singh for the post of ASI/Steno and HC(M) subject to fulfillment of the eligibility criteria as on 20.05.2017.
10. Ms. Deepika Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-appellant has submitted that since the respondent-Union of India has not questioned the order/judgment passed by learned Single Bench with regard to grant of compassionate appointment to the daughter of the appellant-writ petitioner and even at this stage, appellant-writ petitioner is ready to accept the post of ASI/Steno and HC(M) as offered by the respondent-UOI in terms of communication dated 20.05.2017 but till date they have not complied the directions of learned Single Bench. In this state of circumstances, we reckon that the respondent-UOI is indulging in evading the compliance of the 5 LPA No.27/2023 writ Court direction in its letter and spirit and is seeking to protract the matter on one sham pretext or the other, therefore, we deem it appropriate to revive the Contempt Petition bearing No. CPSW No.425/2015, to the extent it relates to non-compliance of the directions by the respondent-UOI as issued in the writ petition for compassionate appointment of the daughter of the writ petitioner- appellant.
11. Registry to list CPSWP No. 425/2015 on 04.09.2023 before the learned Single Bench for dealing with the contempt petition to this respect.
12. List this appeal on 18.09.2023.
13. Registry is directed to place a copy of this order on the record of CPSW No.425/2015 as well.
(Rahul Bharti) (Tashi Rabstan)
Judge Judge
Jammu
14.08.2023
Madan Verma- Secy
6
LPA No.27/2023