IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. COPC (T) No. 5 of 2008. Decided on: 20.10.2010. __________________________________________________ Smt. Promila Devi Rana …Petitioner. Versus Shri Sudripto Rao and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). Heard. 2. The following order was passed by this Court in this matter on 5.10.2010:- “The Court after going through the pleadings of the parties is of the prima-facie view that the judgment in question has not been implemented in letter and spirit till date. The Court is further of the view that rather the respondents have aggravated the contempt. Consequently, the respondent No.2 shall remain present in person on the next date of hearing to explain why the judgment in question has not been implemented in letter and spirit. However, it is made clear that in case the judgment in question is implemented by the next date of hearing, he need not appear.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. In compliance of the above order dated 5.10.2010, the alleged contemnor/respondent No.2, Shri O.P. Sharma, Director of Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla has made the following submissions by way of communication dated 15.10.2010 filed by the learned Deputy Advocate General, which is taken on record:- “I have the honour to refer to abovementioned matter which is pending disposal before this Hon’ble Court. In this regard it is respectfully submitted that the then Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1521/1990 titled as Promila Devi Rana versus State vide judgment dated 09.06.2000 had directed the respondent department to pass an order in accordance with the rules and law changing the seniority assigned to the applicant, but after hearing the applicant, so that the principles of natural justice are complied withy. The then Administrative Tribunal had also quashed the Annexure A-6 which was passed against the natural justice. That in compliance to the judgment passed by the then Administrative Tribunal on 09.05.2000 the replying respondent has passed the detailed order after affording an opportunity of being heard to the applicant/petitioner and after taking into account the submission of Smt. Promila Devi Rana and going through the record and Rules it was decided that on 21.10.2966 Smt. Promila had joined as an untrained teacher and later on completed her B.Ed. training on 12.08.1968 therefore, she cannot be allowed the seniority of Trained Graduate Teacher from the date i.e. 21.10.1966 when she was untrained. However, she has been given the seniority from the date i.e. 12.08.1968 when she has passed the B.Ed. degree. Therefore, the order passed by the then 3 Administrative Tribunal on 09.06.2000 in O.A. No. 1521/1990 has been complied with and the matter has been decided after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner vide order dated 16.03.2003 Annexure R-1.” 4. The present proceedings for contempt arise out of the following operative order passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1521 of 1990, titled Smt. Promila Devi Rana versus State of H.P. and others, decided on June 9, 2000:- “Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, as Annexure A-6 has been passed against the principles of natural justice, on this sole ground the same is hereby quashed. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass any order in accordance with the Rules and law changing the seniority assigned to the applicant, but after hearing the applicant, so that the principles of natural justice are complied with.” 5. Consequently, vide memorandum Annexure C-3 the Additional Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh called the petitioner for personal hearing on 12.12.2000 at 3.00 p.m. However, strangely enough thereafter vide letter dated 3.12.2002 Annexure C-4, the Director of Education, H.P. informed the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh with a copy to the petitioner, inter alia, amongst others as under:- “Please refer to your office letter No. EDN-A- Kha (5) 6/2000 dated September, 2002 on the subject cited above. In this connection it is intimated that the seniority number of Smt. Promila rana as TGT hyas 4 already been corrected 2668-A instead of 2014 vide this office letter No. Shiksha-H(2)B(9)1-17/74 dated 18.11.90. So, now she will be treated for all consequential benefits from seniority No. 2668-A (12.8.68).” 6. Apparently, letter dated 17.11.1990 Annexure C-5, English translation whereof has also been filed as Annexure C-5, which was under challenge in the aforesaid O.A. No. 1521/1990 and was placed on the records of that O.A. as Annexure A-6 was quashed vide order dated June 9, 2000 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1521/1990. Thus, the reference to the same in letter dated 3.12.2002 Annexure C-4 was on the face of it in derogation to the aforesaid direction issued by the Administrative Tribunal. However, the fact remains that thereafter, the petitioner was again afforded an opportunity of being heard by the Director of Education vide letter dated 7.7.2003 Annexure C-6 for 15.7.2003 at 3.00 p.m. It was only thereafter that the matter with regard to implementation of the aforesaid direction issued by the Administrative Tribunal was taken to the logical conclusion vide letter dated 16.9.2003 Annexure R-1. 7. Against the above backdrop, petitioner’s grievance inviting contempt jurisdiction of this Court is that even on the basis of the quashed Annexure A-6 persons junior to her, namely Shri Budh Dev and Shri Pritam Chand were promoted as Deputy Directors (Education) vide notifications Annexures C-8 and C-9, dated 5.4.2003 and 2.5.2003 respectively, that is, even before passing the aforesaid order dated 16.9.2003 Annexure R-1. In this regard, it shall be pertinent to observe that when the seniority of the 5 petitioner is reckoned in terms of order dated 16.9.2003 Annexure R-1, it would be apparent that on its basis she was and is junior to both the aforesaid Shri Budh Dev and Shri Pritam Chand. In view of the above and on and overall view of the matter and particularly letter dated 16.9.2003 Annexure R-1, I am of the view that no case is made out for invoking contempt jurisdiction against the alleged contemnors. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. October 20, 2010. (cr)