^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CG) Contenipt Case No. Of 2006 PETITIONERS a^ -•• ^' -^ ,• ( Arisingout of order dated 18.4.2006 passed in WP No. 331/2003) p^f 1. Yogesh.Noukhare S/o Shri Hagruji Noukhare, aged about 42 years, resident of Rajeev Nagar, Post Ramanagar, Supela Bhilai District Durg (CG). 2. Ishwarlal S/o Kartikram Sahu, aged about 40 years, resident of Village Jora Tarai,Post Mangta, TahsU and District Rajnandgaon (CG). 3. Shiv kumar S/o Kublal Chandrakar Aged about 41 years, resident of Shitla Nagar, near Amatalab, Durg (CG). 4. Gariba Ram S/o Eirtu Ram (Maithil- chhatri), aged about 45 years, resident of Village Damdoda, Post Borai, District Durg (CG). 5. Aijun Singh S/o Jagdish , aged about 47 years, resident of Village Ruabandha, Azad Chowk, Post ^ ,-i' ..^ CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 10 OF THE CONTEMFT OF COURT ACT. Eiirr'!i!i:','i«r'B)' jii»'"iu"!-*^n ..^••"^ ^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra IVIohan Shrivastava.J, PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS CONTEMPT CASE N0.32/2006 Yogeshraj Noukhare and others Versus Shri Ram Yagya and others CONTEMNORS CONTEIVIPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 10 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT Present: - Smt. Renu Kochar, counsei forthe petitioners. Shri V.V.S.Murthy, Senior Counse! along with Shri R.M.Solapurkar, counsel forthe respondents. ORAL ORDER , (Passed on 7th March, 201 1) Heara. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has alteged that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court on 18/4/06, as the respondents passed an order on 1 7/7/06 without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners even though the Court directed the respondents on 18/04/06, to decide the ciaims of the petitioners denovo in the iight of all relevant materiais and giving fair opportunity to them to have their say in the matter and also taking into accountthe documentary evidence adduced. 3. Respondents No.1,2, 3 and 4 referringto the averments made in the reply as aiso the application for taking documents on record submit <hat eariier in compiiance ofthe order ofthe Court, an order was passed on 17/07/06. But iater on, it was found that as per the order passed by the Court, the petitioner was required to be given a notice of hearing also, therefore, the order dated 17/0706 6o was withdrawn and notices were given to the petitioner and after consideration of the entire issue, in the iight of order passed by the Court, an order was passed on 19/4/07. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal in its order had cleariy directed that those daily wage empioyees, who are appointed prior to 26/2/88, shouid be reguiarised in service. Even though the petitioners are daity wage employees, having been appointed prior to 22/6/88, they were denied reguiarisation which led to filing or contempt petition before the Tribunai. The Tribunal did not appreciate the matter in proper perspective and mechanicaily accepted the version of the departmentai authorities.' The Tribunal by the said order, dismissed the contempt petition which has been chalienged before this Court in W.P.No.3317/03 wherein the Court clearly recorded that from the documents filed by the petitioners, it is revealed that the petitioners were appointed as daily wage employees before 22/6/88, Considering the entire circumstances of the case, the Court came to the conclusion that the matter requires proper consideration and therefore directed cfenovo enquiry in the light of alt relevant materiats and give fair opportunity to them to have their say in the matter and also takina into account evidence adduced in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents finally passed an order on 17/07/06, which was not in accord with the directions of the Court and then iater on, to wrrggle out of the contempt proceedings, withdrew that order and passed fresh order which has now placed on record. The order dated 19/4/07 is •^lso not in accordance with the order passed by this Court on 18/4/06 and on perusai 6f the same, would show that even whiie passing that order, the jespondents have willfuily disobeyed the order passed bythis Court. &< 5. After going through the order passed by this Court on 18/4/06 and perusing the order which has been passed on 19/4/07, it is difficult for this Court to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents are guilty of willful disobedience of the order or flouted the order of this Court. 6. Vide order dated 18/4/06, while considering the correctness and validity of order passed by the Tribunal in contempt petition, the Court observed that the petitioners have filed certain documents which show that they were appointed prior to 22/6/88 and the Tribunai did not properly examine various documente ptaced on record and mechanicaliy accepted the( afRdavit fiied by the departmental authorities and the matter requires proper examination. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court deciared that the petitioners were appointed prior to 22/6/88 cannot be accepted. This would be ciear from the operative part of the order also. The directions in para 6 of the t- order cieariy shows that the Court had directed to consider the entire ctaim denovo. This also goes against the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Court itself had decided the issue as to whether the petitioners were appointed prior to 22/6/88. 7. The order was passed on 17/7/06. Thereafter, the respondent authority gave second thought over the matter and they found that the order dated 17/7/06 was passed without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and therefore that order was withdrawn. The petitioners were then given notices and they were-.heard and thereafter, considering the records, the order was passed. From perusat of order dated 19/4/07, it is reftected that the respondents xconsidered certain records, information and materials. The order also showre that v in the case, vigilance enquiry was conducted by the Telecom circle offlce, Bhopai and according to the vigiiance investigation, it was found that those nine petitioners were engaged after 22/6/88 and they were paid retrenchment compensation. irrespective of the fact whether such a flnding is legat or not,l am unable to hold that the respondents have committed any wiiiful disobedience. In the reply, an unconditionai apoiogy has been sought by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents have fairiy submitted ihat when the first order was passed on 1 7/7/06, it was not in the fuilest compliance of the order and therefore, it was withdrawn and another order was passed. 8. Under these circumstances, 1 am not inciirted to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents. If the petitioners have any grievance against the order which has been subsequently passed on 19/4/07, they would be at iiberty to seek redressal against the same, in accordance with law. 9. The rule is therefore discharged. The petition is finaily disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge