^i IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^^ Contemut Petition N0. / 2008 Applicant : ^^•^ ^..^"" -.A -'^' &^. ^^.-^- y-^-- VERSUS Nagendra Dubey S/o Narendra Dubey Aged about 38 yars, R/o House No. 27/458 New Shanti Nagar, Post Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Respondents 1) Shri Anil Soni Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) GeneralNorth RaipurJC.G.) 2) Manibhushan Gupta Range Officer, Vmiiuctud^, Raipur fvf^ J)efiirtv<\ev^- CONTEMFT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT 1971 READ WIlljARTLCLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR S.B. : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J. Contempt Petition^No, 197 of 2008 PETITIONER Nagendra Dubey RESPONDBNTS Versus Shri AnU Soni and one another Petitlon u/S 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 r/w Article 215 of the Coastitytioii of laadia Appearance: Shri Somkant Veraia, comisel for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhawatia, counsel for the respondents. ORAL- ORDBR (Passedon 1.3.2011) Heard. 2. Even though notice was issued on respondent No.l, reply on behalf of respondent No.2 has also been filed by leamed counsel for the respondents in compiiance of fhe order dated 11.8.2008, whereby leamed counsel in his capacity as Dy. Advocate General was directed to seek instructions. 3. This contempt petition has been filed by fhe petitioner alleging wiltfLil disobedience of order dated 19th April, 2006 passed by tliis CoLirt in W. P. No. 1781 of 2003 and batch of petitions. 4. Leamed counsel for tlie petitioner submitted that vide order dated 19th April, 2006, the Court had passed an order on ftie petition ;%. ^ Sf ^f^^ ^ -2- '^ filed by Chhattisgarh Dainik Vetan Bhogi Van Kannchari Sangh and number of ofher daify wage employees, directing fhe respondents therein to regularize sennce of daily-wagers in tenns of Circular dated 9.1.1990. The Court further directed that il' required number of posts are not available to regulari^ services of the petitioners, in terms of Circulai' dated 9.1.1990, tlie respondents shatl create required number of supemumerary posts and regularize their services. The Coi.irt further directed that the direction shall be complied with within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of fhe order. 5. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was also one of fhe member of fhe employee association i.e. Chhattisgarh Dainik Vetan Bhogi Van Karmchari Sangti, who was petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1781/03. Therefore, the respondent authority ought to have considered the case ofthe petitioner also for regularization in compliance of fhe order of fhe Court and fhe Circular dated 9.1.1990 and regularize his services. He submits that even though the Assistant Raage Oflicer of Raipur Range vide his letter dated 10th Januaiy, 2008 recommended reguladzation of the petitioner, and the petitioner is the member of the employee association, as reflected from Annexure C-6, his claim for regularization was rejected vide letter dated 11.4.2008. Leamed counsel for the petitioner further submits that. fhough an order of regular appointment was later on issued to the petitioner on 18.9.2008, when fhe petitioner made representation on 30th -3- ^^ tby September, 2008 to pass appropriate order of appointment granting proper seniority in compUance of fhe order passed by this Court, his appointment order was cancelled stating fhat the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions of appointment order dated 18th September, 2008 and his joinmg letter dated 4.11.2008 was not accepted. 6. On the ofher hand leamed counsel for the respondents submitted that the ofilce of D.F.0., Raipur Division, received information from the office of Prantadhyaksha, Chhattisgarh Dainik Vetan Bhogi Van Karmchari Sangh on 21.8.2008 along with the Ust of the members. The said list did not contain the name of tlie petitioner. It is fiirther submitted that as the petitioner was neither stated to be member of fhe employee-association nor was any of fhe petitioner tn his individual capacity, covered by order dated 19th April, 2006, there was no occasion for thie authority to consider the case of the petitioner in compliance of the Court order, as fhe same was not applicable in the case of the petitioner, but in view of the decision taken by the Govemment on 9.7.2008 in the matter of regularization of daily wage employees, fhe case of the petitioner was also considered and an order of appointment was issued on 18.9.2008 granting regular appointment to the petitioner. One of the conditions of appointoaient was fhat the petitioner was to submit his joining within 15 days. The order of appointment was served on fhe petitioner on 30th September, 2008. However, fhe petitioner ^. >.••' ^^^' ^^^-'" .^ ^ -4- instead ofjoining, started raising claim fhat he was entitled to be regularized under the order of fhe Court along with benefit of seniority. He finally submitted thejoinmg only on 4.11.2008. As the order of appointment was served on him on 30.9.2008, the joining was beyond fhe period prescribed under clause 4 of the order of appouitment. 7. The order passed by the Court on 19th April, 2006 in W.P. No. 1781/03 and batch of petitions, covered the cases of fhose who were fhe members of the petiUoner -union and those who had filed petition in fheir individual capacity, The association fonvarded the Ust of members, reference of which has been made hereinabove. That list did not contain the name of the petitioner, though the petitioner submits that he was one of fhe members of the employee-association and has placed on record a certillcate Annexure C-6 issued. on 21.7.2008 by one Nirmal Shanna, Secretary of the Association, There are neither any pleading nor any document to show that any such representation was made by the petitioner to fhe respondent claiming himself to be the member of the employee-association. The steps which were taken by respondent No. 1 to grant regular appointment to the petitioner and issue order of appointment on 18.9.2008 were pursuant to the Govt. Policy of regularization of daity wage employees. This contem.pt petition was filed by the petitioner on 25th July, 2008 and the certificate of membership has been obtained by the petitioner on 21.7.2008. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he placed any material before respondent No. 1 to establish -5- ''••^^-^ that he is the member of the employees' association. In fhe affidavit ffled by respondent No.2 a letter dated 21.8.2008 (Annexure R-2/1) has been placed on record, in which a query was made from Sanat Sharma in the Office of the Range Officer, to send a list of employees and a copy of fhat list was forwarded vide letter dated 21.8.2008 to the D.F.O., Raipur Division. The same has also been placed on record along with Annexure R-2/1. The petitioner coiild not point out from fhe said list that he was included in that list. 8. Therefore, it is difficult for this Court to accept the submission of leamed coiinsel for the petitioner that fhe respondent committed any wUlful disobedience ofthe order ofthis Court. The petitioner's claim of his being member of the association, is based on a certificate which was obtained on 21.7.2008 and soon thereafter without making any representation to the D.F.0., based on such a letter, contempt petition was flled before this Court on 25.7.2008. Therefore, under fhese circiiaistances, no case for commission of contempt is made out by respondent No.l, as it has been held that order ofregular appointment dated 18.9.2008 was not towards compliance of the order of the Court, but in ftie matter of implementation of Govt. policy of regularization, Whettier or not refusal to accept his joining dated 4.11.2008 vide letter dated 5.11.2008 is valid or not is beyond the scope of purview of contempt petition. However, if fhe association of the petitioner or the petitioner is able to establish before respondent ^,-^ -6- No.l/successor m his ofilce, that he was also member of the employee- association and that his name was inadvertently not mentioned in the list forwarded to respondent No.l., respondent No.l/successor in his ofiice, shall take appropriate decision tn that regard in fhe light of order dated 19th April, 2006. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Praveen