Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Parshotam Kumar Sharma vs B. R. Sharma, Chief Secretary, & Ors. on 6 March, 2018

Author: Alok Aradhe

Bench: Alok Aradhe

                         HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                                     AT JAMMU

CPSW No.56/2017 in SWP No.1947/2015,
c/w
CPSW No.212/2017, CPSW No.60/2017, CPSW No.57/2017, CPSW No.252/2017,                   CPSW
No.53/2017, CPSW No.233/2017, CPSW No.59/2017, CPSW No.100/2017,                        CPSW
No.261/2017, CPSW No.61/2017, CPSW No.71/2017, CPSW No.107/2017,                        CPSW
No.108/2017, CPSW No.70/2017, CPSW No.62/2017, CPSW No.336/2017 &                       CPSW
No.72/2017
                                                               Date of order: 06.03.2018
 Parshotam Kumar Sharma                   Vs.     B. R. Sharma, Chief Secretary, & Ors.
 Along with other connected matters
Coram:
                  Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe, Judge
Appearing counsel:

For Petitioner/Appellant(s)     : Mr. D C Raina, Sr. Advocate with Mr. D S Chouhan, Adv.
                                  Mr. B S Salathia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. D S Chouhan, Adv.
                                  Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Veenu Gupta, Adv.
                                  Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate.
                                  Mr. P N Raina, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J A Hamal, Adv.
                                  Mr. M K Bhardwaj, Sr. Adv with Ms. Arti Bahl, Adv.
                                  Mr. Sudershan Sharma, Advocate.
                                  Mr. Rahil Raja, Advocate.
                                  Mr. A P Singh, Advocate.
                                  Mr. C S Azad, Advocate.
                                  Mr. P N Bhat, Advocate.
                                  Mr. S H Rather, Advocate.
For respondent (s)              : Mrs. Seema Shekhar, Sr. AAG.

These contempt petitions have been filed for non-compliance of the judgments passed in the bunch of writ petitions by which this Court had quashed the orders of compulsory retirement of the petitioners and had directed their reinstatement along with all consequential benefits within a period of one month.

2) This Court has passed an order dated 23.02.2018 in the aforesaid contempt petitions, the paragraph 11 of the said order reads as under:

"I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In the instant case, admittedly, the orders except in seven cases have not been complied with. The order passed by this Court has been upheld by the Division Bench and even the SLP has not been filed. It is well settled in law that even filing of SLP would not preclude this Court from proceeding ahead with the contempt proceeding. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. H, Phunindre Singh and Others supra. Therefore, there appears to be prima facie no justification for non compliance with the orders passed by this Court. In view of law laid down in Mazdoor Sangh vs. Banglore Jute Factory, (2017) 5 SCC 506, this Court can issue directions in the contempt proceedings ensure compliance of the order. However, in view of averments made in the compliance report and in peculiar fact situation of the case and taking into account the fact that LPA against the order dated 05.02.2018 is pending before the Division Bench and is fixed for 26.02.2018, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to submit the compliance report on or before 06.03.2018 and to purge the contempt failing which this Court shall be constrained to take appropriate action against the respondents for willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court including framing of Robkar against them. The presence of Secretary, Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and Commissioner/ Secretary to Government, General Administration Department is dispensed with for the time being."

3) In compliance of the aforesaid order, Mrs. Seema Shekhar, learned senior Additional Advocate General for the respondents has filed the compliance report on behalf of the respondents. Along with the compliance report, a copy of the order dated 02.03.2018 is annexed. The relevant extract of the order dated 02.03.2018 reads as under:

"Now, therefore, in view of the above, it is hereby ordered that:-

i) Government Order No.897-GAD of 2015 dated 30.06.2015 ordering premature retirement of Shri CPSW No.56/2017 c/w connected matters Page 2 of 5 Parshotam Kumar Sharma, VLW, Block Ghat, Doda, is rescinded abinitio.

ii) The officer shall be entitled for payment of salary and other service benefits to which he would have been entitled to in the absence of Government Order No.897-

GAD of 2015 dated 30.06.2015 and such benefits shall be released within two months from the date of Court order viz. dated 23.02.2018. However payment of salary in terms of the instant Government Order shall be subject to the deduction of three month salary and allowances paid to him at the time of premature retirement in lieu of notices as envisaged under Article 226(2) of CSR.

iii) He shall furnish an undertaking to the effect that he was not gainfully employed anywhere during the period from 30.06.2015 to the date of issuance of this order.

iv) The officer upon reinstatement shall submit his joining report to his Administrative Department for further posting.

v) That his reinstatement/implementation of the writ Court judgment shall be subject to the final outcome of the SLP, to be filed and cases, if any, pending against him in any matter or connected therewith."

4) Mr. D. C. Raina, learned senior Counsel for petitioners submitted that this Court while disposing of the writ petitions filed by the petitioners had directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioners and to accord them all consequential benefits within one month. However, in the order dated 02.03.2018 it is directed that the benefits shall be released within two months, which is, in fact, contravention of the order. It is also submitted that the contempt petition should be kept pending to ensure that the respondents comply with the order passed by this Court in letter and spirit. It is further submitted that the compliance report does not indicate any remorse on the part of the respondents.

5) M/S Abhinav Sharma and Sudershan Sharma, learned counsel as well as other learned counsel for the petitioners have adopted the submissions made by Mr. D. C. Raina, learned senior counsel and have submitted that till today no order of postings have been issued in favour of the petitioners.

6) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. This Court by the judgments passed in the bunch of writ petitions had quashed the orders of compulsory retirement and had directed that the petitioners shall be reinstated in the service with all consequential benefits within a period of one month, thereafter the respondents challenged the aforesaid orders in the Letters Patent Appeal, which was dismissed. After the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal in view of the directions contained in the order dated 23.11.2017 passed in bunch of contempt petitions, the respondents have issued the order dated 02.03.2018. It is pertinent to mention that this Court while passing the order dated 23.02.2018 had directed the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioners within a period of two months. It appears that while passing the aforesaid order dated 23.02.2018, the time limit of one month for grant of all consequential benefits fixed in the original order was not noticed by this Court. Therefore, the contention of Mrs. Seems Shekhar, learned Additional Advocate General, that since in the order dated 23.02.2018, the period of two months' time was fixed, therefore, the respondents have fixed the period of two months while passing the order dated 02.03.2018. Therefore, the same cannot be said to be a case of willful disobedience on the part of the respondents.

7) In the instant case, in pursuance of order dated 23.02.2018 in which a direction was issued to purge the contempt, it is evident that the respondents have substantially complied with the orders passed by this Court. No doubt, it is true that disobedience of the order of the Court CPSW No.56/2017 c/w connected matters Page 4 of 5 strikes at the very root by rule of law on which judicial system is based. The rule of law is foundation of democratic society and the same has to be respected by the authorities of the Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Poddar vs. Dhani Ram, (2002) 1 SCC 766, has held that when the Court is apprised during the pendency of the Contempt proceedings that the order has been complied with, the Court should show judicial grace and magnanimity in dealing with the action for contempt.

8) In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law in the facts of the present case, since the orders passed by this Court have been complied with, I am inclined to dispose of the contempt petition with the directions to the respondents to issue orders by implementing the orders passed by this Court with quite promptitude and to pay the petitioners all the consequential benefits within a period of two months from today. The respondents shall submit the status report before the Registrar Judicial of this Court. Needless to state that in case any of the directions are not complied with, the petitioners would be at liberty to seek revival of these contempt petitions.

With the aforesaid directions, the contempt petitions are disposed of accordingly.

(Alok Aradhe) Judge Jammu 06.03.2018 Surinder CPSW No.56/2017 c/w connected matters Page 5 of 5