THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 1598 OF 2009 Date: 30.12.2009 Between: Sri Jakkam Veeraiah ..... PETITIONER AND Sri S.Narasing Rao and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 1598 OF 2009 ORDER : This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the order of this Court dated 23.10.2009 in W.P.No.16650 of 2009 and to punish the respondents under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. W.P.No.16650 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that the order passed by the respondents dated 01.10.2008 declaring that the petitioner shall retire on 31.10.2009 as arbitrary and illegal. It was contended that the petitioner’s correct date of birth was 14.10.1956 and therefore he would attain the age of 60 years only on 14.10.2016 and thus he should be continued in service till 31.10.2016. Having heard both the parties and having taken into consideration the plea of the respondents that after filing the writ petition the petitioner was referred to Apex Medical Board for assessment of his correct age in terms of Circular dated 23.12.2003, this Court disposed of W.P.No.16650 of 2009 by order dated 23.10.2009, with directions as under: “Having regard to the decision taken by the respondents to refer the petitioner’s case to Apex Medical Board, the learned counsel for the petitioner represented that the petitioner is ready and willing to subject himself for examination by the Apex Medical Board. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents under instructions submitted that the Apex Medical Board will be constituted at an early date for determination of the age of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to ensure the appearance of the petitioner before the Apex Medical Board without fail provided the date is intimated in advance. In the circumstances, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the merits and accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to constitute the Apex Medical Board in terms of Circular dated 23.12.2003 for determination of the age of the petitioner and inform the date fixed for appearance of the petitioner in advance under proper acknowledgement. Thereafter as per the opinion of the Apex Medical Board the respondents shall take appropriate decision and communicate the same to the petitioner. Till such time, the impugned order dated 01.10.2008 shall not be given effect to. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.” In this contempt case it is alleged that the respondent authorities did not allow the petitioner to perform his duties on 28.10.2009 stating that unless and until a copy of the judgment in the writ petition is produced he will not be allowed to discharge his duties. It is pleaded that the copy of the order in W.P.No.16650 of 2009 was issued by this Court to the petitioner’s counsel on 30.10.2009 and on the same day the copy was sent to the respondents by registered post. That apart on 31.10.2009, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent and produced a copy of the order in the writ petition. However, the 2nd respondent advised the petitioner to submit the said copy on 01.11.2009 stating that 31.10.2009 was a non-working day for the Collieries, 8 A Incline. Accordingly, on 01.11.2009 the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent along with the president of the Union and three other members to submit the judgment copy. It is alleged that instead of receiving the copy the 2nd respondent expressed dis-respect for the orders passed by this Court and stated that they were not bound by the order. It was also claimed that since the petitioner had already retired from service on 31.10.2009, the order was not binding. In the circumstances, on 03.11.2009 a copy of the order was again sent by registered post to the respondents. In spite of the same, the respondents neither allowed the petitioner to discharge his duties nor he was given any intimation to appear before the Apex Medical Board in compliance with the order of this Court. Hence, this contempt case. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent- Deputy General Manager denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stating that on 27.10.2009 itself when the petitioner attended to his shift duty at 7.15 AM he was served with the letter dated 26.10.2009 informing to appear before the Apex Medical Board on 29.10.2009 which was constituted as per the directions of this Court in W.P.No.16650 of 2009. It is alleged that the petitioner refused to take the letter and the same was recorded in the presence of two other witnesses. A copy of the said letter was also displayed in the notice board at the Mine premises where the petitioner was working and the same was also sent to the petitioner by registered post as well as through the local courier. The petitioner refused to take delivery of the letter sent through the courier. However, the respondents had constituted the Apex Medical Board on 29.10.2009 with the hope that the petitioner, who was fully aware of the constitution of the Medical Board, would abide by the directions of this Court. However, the petitioner did not appear before the Apex Medical Board and consequently the Apex Medical Board submitted a report on the basis of the records available assessing the age of the petitioner as 60 years as on 29.10.2009. The allegation of the petitioner that he was not allowed to duty from 28.10.2009 onwards has been specifically denied and it is pleaded that the alleged contempt on their part is false and without any basis. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. As noticed above, whereas the petitioner alleges that the respondents refused to receive the copy of the order of this Court submitted by the petitioner and also did not allow him to attend the duties from 28.10.2009 onwards, the same has been categorically denied by the respondents and it is stated by the respondents that in spite of the fact that a Medical Board was constituted in terms of the order of this Court and notice was given to the petitioner he refused to receive the same and did not appear before the Medical Board for assessment of his age. Both the parties produced before this Court the material to substantiate their respective versions. It is to be noticed that, even in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it was alleged that his request to send him to Medical Board for assessment of age was not considered by the respondent authorities and the same was disputed by the respondents. Having regard of the rival claims and with a view to put an end to the controversy, this Court disposed of the writ petition by order dated 23.10.2009, with the directions extracted above. The said order was passed with the consent of both the parties and no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case. As a matter of fact this Court had only recorded the decision already taken by the respondents to refer the petitioner’s case to the Apex Medical Board and the willingness of the petitioner to submit himself for such medical examination by the Apex Medical Board. This Court also recorded the undertaking given by the counsel for the petitioner to ensure the appearance of the petitioner before the Apex Medical Board without fail, provided the date was intimated in advance. As could be seen, this contempt case is based on the petitioner’s allegation that there was no such intimation of the constitution of the Medical Board and on the other hand the petitioner was restrained from attending his duties in deliberate violation of the orders of this Court. The respondent authorities have denied the allegations and placed the material before this Court to show that though advance intimation was given to the petitioner on 26.10.2009 itself, the petitioner himself had refused to receive the same. Such a disputed question of fact cannot be gone into and decided by this Court and as a matter of fact in view of the chequered history of this case, such enquiry is not necessary for the purpose of the present contempt case and it is not a fit case to take cognisance under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In the result, the Contempt Case is dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy as available under law against the report given by the Apex Medical Board dated 29.10.2009 as well as the consequential action of the respondents in retiring the petitioner with effect from 01.11.2009. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 30.12.2009 Ivd