IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. COPC(T) No. 201 of 2008 with COPC(T) Nos. 202, 203, 204, 205, 206 and 207 of 2008. Decided on: 23.09.2010. __________________________________________________________ 1. COPC(T) No.201 of 2008. Ishwar Singh. …Petitioner. Versus Padam Dev Chauhan and another. … Respondents. 2. COPC(T) No.202 of 2008. Mohinder Singh. … Petitioner. Versus Baldev Thakur. … Respondent. 3. COPC(T) No.203 of 2008. Gorakh Singh. … Petitioner. Versus Padam Dev Chauhan and another. … Respondents. 4. COPC(T) No.204 of 2008. Surinder Kumar. … Petitioner. Versus Padam Dev Chauhan and another. … Respondents. 5. COPC(T) No.205 of 2008. Ravi Dutt. … Petitioner. Versus Padam Dev Chauhan and another. … Respondents. 6. COPC(T) No.206 of 2008. Suresh Kumar. … Petitioner. Versus Baldev Thakur. … Respondent. - 2 - 7. COPC(T) No.207 of 2008. Tarsem Chand. … Petitioner. Versus Padam Dev Chauhan and another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Verma, Advocate (in all the petitions). For the Respondents : Mr. B.S. Attri, Advocate (in the petition). Justice Kurian Joseph, C. J. (Oral): According to the petitioners in these cases, the respondents have not implemented the order dated 5.4.2004 passed in O.A. No.1450 of 2002 in letter and spirit. Learned counsel for the University submits that as per the undertaking before the Tribunal and as per directions of the Tribunal, the order is being implemented. 2. It is necessary to refer to short facts of these cases. The petitioners approached the Tribunal that they were disengaged while working as regular Beldars. During the pendency of the proceedings, the University made offer that in case the petitioners are ready and willing to work, they can be re-engaged on contractual basis for seasonal work at the rate of Rs.1650/- per month, for a limited period. This offer was accepted by the petitioners and on the basis of the offer and acceptance, the Tribunal disposed of the matters. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that pursuant to those orders, the petitioners were engaged only for 89 days and were given breaks after 89 days. - 3 - We are afraid that the fact of the matter cannot be gone into contempt proceedings since, admittedly, the petitioners have been re-engaged. Whether their re-engagement after giving short breaks after 89 days is fair, proper, reasonable, just, equitable and legal, are not matters to be gone into the contempt proceedings. Those are to be gone in appropriate proceedings, particularly, since the Tribunal itself had not gone into legality or propriety of the conduct of the University in disengaging the petitioners. 3. Therefore, without prejudice and with liberty to the petitioners to pursue their surviving grievances in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum, these contempt petitions are dismissed and the respondents are discharged. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. September 23, 2010. (sck/awasthi).