THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No.658 OF 2010 DATED: 09.06.2010 Between : D. Jeevan Lal … Petitioner And Life Insurance Corporation of India, rep. by Its Senior Divisional Manager L.K. Syam Sunder, Marketing Dept., Secunderabad Divisional Office, Jeevan Sagar, Near Indira Park, Secundereabad-80. … Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No.658 OF 2010 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed with a prayer to punish the respondent herein for the alleged violation of the order of this Court dated 23.12.2009 in W.P.No.9822 of 2009. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. W.P.No.9822 of 2009 was filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the respondent dated 18.12.2008 terminating the petitioner’s services as probationary Development Officer was arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, though it was contended that the petitioner could not achieve the target of minimum business prescribed, the plea of the petitioner that 9 persons who were similarly situated like the petitioner were granted extension of the period of probation was not denied by the respondent. In the circumstances, the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 23.12.2009 with a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for extension of the period of probation on par with the other similarly situated Probationary Development Officers and pass appropriate orders within six weeks. Pursuant thereto, the respondent – Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India – by order dated 19.2.2010 informed the petitioner that his actual performance in relation to the prescribed norms was so insignificant and therefore it did not merit extension. It was explained that nine other persons were granted extension of probationary period as variation in their performance in relation to the prescribed norms was not too large. The statistics with regard to the performance of the petitioner in the prescribed parameters and the range of performance registered by the other nine other Probationary Development Officers were also furnished and it was concluded that the petitioner’s performance in all the prescribed parameters indicated the signs of his inability in discharging the role prescribed of the Probationary Development Officer and therefore his probationary period did not warrant any extension. Contending that the said action of the respondent was in total violation of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9822 of 2009, the present Contempt Case has been filed. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was not open to the respondents to reject the petitioner’s case for extension of the probationary period on the allegation that he failed to meet the prescribed parameters of the performance. It is also contended that re-evaluation of the performance of the petitioner was not permissible as per the terms of this Court in W.P.No.9822 of 2009 and therefore the order of rejection dated 19.2.2010 amounts to deliberate violation of the order of this Court. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is also contended that the action of the respondent in the matter of grant of extension of probationary period was arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory and the extensions were being granted as per whims and fancies of the authority concerned. It is also contended that the three individuals namely Girish Raj, Teja and Pradeep who were similarly placed as the petitioner were given extension by six months on 18.12.2008 and the petitioner was denied such benefit without there being any justifiable reason. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for taking cognizance under the Contempt of Courts Act. This Court while disposing of W.P.No.9822 of 2009 did not direct the respondent to grant extension to the petitioner, but the direction was that the respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner for extension of the period of probation on par with the other similarly situated Probationary Development Officers. Pursuant to the same, the respondent passed a well reasoned order assigning reasons for which the extension was granted to the other persons who were claimed to be similarly situated and furnishing the details to substantiate the stand that the petitioner’s probation did not warrant extension. Even assuming that the said order dated 19.2.2010 is erroneous or contrary to law on any ground whatsoever, since it gives rise to a new cause of action, if aggrieved, it is for the petitioner to challenge the same by working out the appropriate remedy as available under law. But it is not a case to be entertained under the Contempt of Courts Act. Hence, the Contempt Case is dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to challenge the order dated 19.2.2010 by working out the appropriate remedy as available under law. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 09.06.2010 gbs