Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hansraj Yadav vs Vivek Kumar on 9 October, 2020
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
CONC No.2592/2017
Hansraj Yadav & Ors.
Versus
Vivek Kumar
Date of Order 09.10.2020
Bench Constituted Single Bench
Order delivered by Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay
Dwivedi
Whether approved for
reporting
Name of counsel for parties For Petitioners: Shri Amalpushp
Shroti, Advocate.
For Respondent / Contemner : Shri
Ashish Shroti, Advocate Reserved on : 23.09.2020 Delivered on : 09.10.2020 (O R D E R) (09/10/2020) This Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India alleging that the respondent/contemner has willfully flouted the order dated 02.11.2016 (Annexure-C/3) passed by this Court in W.P.No.6556/2012. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent has filed a reply stating therein that there is no case of willful violation of the order of this Court and as such no case of contempt is made out.
-:- 2 -:-
2. The necessary facts, in a nutshell, are that the petitioners filed various writ petitions before this Court seeking a direction for the respondent-Bank to regularize their services in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Umadevi & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. The said petitions were analogously decided vide order dated 16.09.2011 (Annexure-
C/1) whereby the petitions were allowed with a direction to the respondent/Bank for considering the case of each of the petitioners in accordance with the policy as may be prescribed by the Board and a decision be taken for regularization of the petitioners as per the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee.
3. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, a Scrutiny Committee of the Bank took-up the cases of each of the petitioners and passed the orders in cyclostyle manner thereby rejected the claim of the petitioners without referring any policy as per the mandate given in the order of this Court.
4. Feeling aggrieved with the rejection of the claim for regularization, the petitioners filed a writ petition i.e. W.P.No.6556/2012 in which a reply was filed by the Bank taking stand therein that the respondents duly formed a Scrutiny Committee and also framed a policy for considering the cases
-:- 3 -:-
for regularization of the petitioners. However, as per the petitioners, no such policy was placed before the Court alongwith the reply.
5. W.P.No.6556/2012 came-up for hearing on 02.11.2016 and was decided by this Court directing the Bank to supply the copy of the said policy formulated by the Bank and also granted liberty to pass a fresh order after recording reasons as to why the petitioners are not found entitled for regularization. The order passed by the Writ Court on 02.11.2016 (Annexure-C/3) has given rise to this contempt petition alleging that said direction has not been complied with. The petitioners also moved a representation on 08.11.2016 (Annexure-C/4).
6. The respondents thereafter issued letter to each of the petitioners attaching therewith a Onetime Measure Policy prescribing certain eligibility criteria for considering the case of regularization and rejected the claim in view of the said policy.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners claimed that the respondent has misled the Court while arguing the matter i.e. W.P.No.6556/2012 in which it was argued that they have already framed a policy but infact there was no policy framed by the Bank and that has been framed only after the direction issued by this Court allowing the petition taking into account the
-:- 4 -:-
statement made on behalf of the Bank that the policy of regularization is already existing. The petitioners, therefore, claim that the case of their regularization cannot be rejected in view of the policy which was not existing on the date of disposal of W.P.No.6556/2012 and as such compliance made by the respondent in view of the subsequently framed policy known as 'Onetime Measure Policy' cannot be said to be proper compliance, rather it amounts to violation of the order and as such it is contemptuous and thus, the respondent is liable to be punished suitably.
8. The respondent has filed a reply stating therein that in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.6556/2012, a representation was submitted by the petitioners, which was decided by the respondent under the provisions of the policy. Thus, rejecting the representation of the petitioners cannot be said to be violation of the order of the Court and does not come within the ambit of contempt of Court. It is also stated that the petitioners are at liberty to challenge that order by approaching the CGIT as the said liberty was granted by the Court in W.P.No.6556/2012.
9. Shri Amalpushp Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent-Bank by misleading the Court got the petition decided on the basis of
-:- 5 -:-
statement made that the Bank has already formed the policy of regularization. He further submitted that on the basis of said statement of respondent-Bank and also considering their undertaking that they have formulated the policy and the matter has been referred to the Scrutiny Committee duly constituted by the Bank, the Court has allowed the petition by order dated 02.11.2016 Thus, the claim of the petitioners ought to have been considered in view of the policy already formulated by the Bank, although the said policy was not produced before the Court as per the petitioners fake statement given by the Bank before the Court as no policy was framed by the Bank, therefore, rejection of the claim of the petitioners in view of the subsequently framed policy cannot be said to be proper compliance and it is alleged that not complying with the order in its true perspective would amount to contempt of Court.
10. Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the respondent/contemner has submitted that the direction was issued by the Court to consider the representation of the petitioners and that has been considered and rejected by the respondent, therefore, in any manner the action of the respondent cannot be considered to be a willful violation of the order and in that eventuality, the petitioners are therefore free to assail the said order by approaching the CGIT because said
-:- 6 -:-
liberty was granted by this Court while deciding W.P.No.6556/2012.
11. I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and also perused the record.
12. As per the facts of the case, in the year 2011 the petitioners had filed various petitions claiming regularization and those petitions were disposed of vide order dated 16.09.2011 with the following directions:-
"11. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the following directions are issued to be followed by the Bank in the case of the each of the petitioners.
(I) On the petitioner filing a certified copy of this order, respondent Bank shall constitute a Scrutiny Committee in accordance to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) as also a policy for regularization of the employees as per the law laid down in the said case.
(II) The Scrutiny Committee shall consider the case of each of the petitioners for regularization keeping in view the parameters and guidelines/directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra), case of each of the petitioner shall be scrutinized in accordance to the policy as may be prescribed by the Board and a decision taken for regularization of the petitioners or otherwise as per the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee.
(III) The entire exercise to the aforesaid order shall be concluded within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(IV) Needless to emphasize that if the petitioners have any grievance by the decision taken by the Bank, the petitioners shall at
-:- 7 -:-
liberty to assail the same in accordance with law."
In compliance of the said direction, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioners by passing the orders in cyclostyle manner assigning same reason and those orders were further assailed by the petitioners by filing W.P.No.6556/2012.
13. From a perusal of the order passed by the Writ Court on 02.11.2016, it is crystal clear that the Court has allowed the petition on the basis of the statement made on behalf of the Bank across the bar as would be clear from the observation of the Court, which is as follows:-
"Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has stated across the Bar that as per the directions issued by this Court a policy was formulated and the matter was relegated to the duly constituted scrutiny committee by the Bank and as per the report of the committee the orders impugned Annexure P/11 have been passed.
Therefore, no interference in these petitions is warranted."
And further it has been observed that;
"......Therefore, after supplying copy of the said policy to the petitioners, the respondent Bank would be at liberty to pass the order afresh recording the finding or assigning the reasons as to why they are not entitled to take recourse of law as per the order of this Court....."
-:- 8 -:-
It is clear from the order passed by this Court in first round of litigation as also in second round that the basic policy of regularization was taken note of by this Court laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Umadevi (supra), however, in the second round of litigation since it is the bank which has misled the Court while making statement that in the light of the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) the Bank has also formulated a policy of regularization and constituted a Scrutiny Committee and cases of the petitioner have been referred to the said Committee to consider their claim in the light of the said policy. The Court, therefore, disposed of the petition directing the Bank to decide their representation in view of the said policy and to inform the petitioners assigning reasons. Admittedly, the petitioners had not approached the Court seeking recall of the order or modification in the same as the Bank has given the incorrect statement regarding formulation of policy of regularization but in a contempt petition it is stated by the petitioners that after making false statement in the Court and getting the petition disposed of, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered in view of any policy formulated after the order of the Court. As per the stand taken by the respondent that on the date of deciding W.P.No.6556/2012 no policy was in existence but that
-:- 9 -:-
policy was formulated thereafter and was supplied to the petitioners and the claim of the petitioners for regularization has been considered in view of the criteria laid down in the said policy. Thus, it is clear that the action of the respondent infact does not fall within the periphery of willful disobedience of the order of this Court and as such same would not amount to contempt of Court, but at the same time it is the duty of the Bank to comply with the order passed by the writ Court and if any incorrect statement on their part had been made before the Court then it was incumbent upon them to inform the Court and to get the order modified, but nothing was done.
14. From a perusal of the order passed by this Court on earlier two occasions, it is clear that in both the occasions, the petitions have been allowed directing the respondent-Bank to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization in view of the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra). In the first round of litigation, this Court in W.P.No.7399/2011 (with other connected matters) decided by a common order dated 16.09.2011, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization by constituting a Scrutiny Committee as per the direction given by the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) and allowed the petitions. Thereafter, various orders have been passed by
-:- 10 -:-
the respondents which were assailed by the petitioners by filing W.P.No.6556/2012 in which this Court was of the opinion that the orders are in cyclostyle manner as no reasons have been assigned in the same, therefore, finding those orders illegal, this Court has set aside those orders. However, in view of the undertaking and incorrect statement given by the Bank, the said petition was also allowed and disposed of with a further direction to the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioners by passing a reasoned order and recording a finding as to why the petitioners are not entitled to get the benefit of regularization, if finally their claim is rejected. Therefore, in my opinion, though the case of deliberate disobedience is not made out, but considering the overall circumstances further direction is given to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra).
14. It is also an admitted position that the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.6556/2012 has not been further assailed by any of the parties, therefore, compliance of the said order is the requirement of the law. Therefore, at this juncture in view of the foregone discussion, instead of holding the conduct of the respondent as contemptuous though they have made incorrect statement in the Court, I deem it fit to dispose of this
-:- 11 -:-
contempt petition with a direction to the respondent-Bank to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization in view of the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Umadevi (supra). It is further directed that the petitioners since have completed more than 10 years of service, the respondent- Bank can consider the claim for regularization of their services. Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of submitting the certified copy of this order.
15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this contempt petition is disposed of.
(Sanjay Dwivedi)
Judge
Digitally signed by
sudesh SUDESH KUMAR SHUKLA
Date: 2020.10.13
11:56:51 +05'30'