. (f'i IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR <^€d^^T.- ' -.'. - -.. - s^^^i^ m^. CONTEMPT P^^iWI N0. ^02^- of 2010 3»^^r?% APPLICANT: Uttara Kumar Yadav, aged about 37 years, son of Shri o^.o-^£^&a^ Netram Yada, R/o Village/Post ^^:&s^ ?^^".-- ,^^-"c Sambalpur, Tehsil Nawagarh, District burg (CG) Vs CQNTEMNOR Shri R.K. Dhruv, Chief Executive Officer,Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh, District Durg (CG) CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. 1973 READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. .-^' ,^.^.1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BIIA8PUR S.B._: HONtBLB 8HRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRWASTAVA, J. PETITION^l RESPONDBNT Contempt Case (Cl N0.202/2010 Uttara Kumar Yadav VCTSUS Shri R.K. Dhmv Petitlon u/Section 12 ofthe Contemiit ofCourtsAct. 1973 r/W Article 21S of the Conatitution of India Appearance: Shri Dinesh Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Armi Sao, counsel for the respoiident. ORAL-ORDBR (Passed on 10.02.2011) Heard. 2. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that he has moved an application for impleadtng the CoUector, Durg, as party. 3. The petitioner has aUeged wiUful disobedien<% of the order dated 6.5.2010 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 130/10. 4. Gase of fhe petitioner is that the petitioner had filed a writ petition challengyig tfae order dated 25.8.2008 passed by the Collector, Durg, whereby his appointment was cancelled. The writ petition was dismissed, agednst which, a writ appeal was filed and vide order dated 6.5.2010 passed in W.A. No.130/10, the Divlsion Bench of this Court has set aside the order dated 30th March, .^ffi^,,f^, ^.,.N. '^J^ -2- 2010 passed by fhe leamed Smgle Judge as al^_0Dd6r dated 25th August, 2008 canceling the appointment ofthe petitioner. 5. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner argued that the eflfect of judicial order, quashing the order dated 25th August, 2008 by which ftie appointment of the petitioner was cancelled, would be that the petitioner would be re-instated in the service and would also be entitlc^l to work and receive salary. His further submission is fhat even after fhe order was passed by the Division Bench, fhe petitioner was not re-instated in service, nor any salaiy was paid to him and fhe CoUector, in pmported compliance ofthe order offhe Court, held an enquiry and passed an order on 14th Januaiy, 2011, holding fhat fhe petitionar Mled to prove that he had to his credit^teaching expeilence of more fhan 6 months. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner further contended that even (hough this Court quashed fhe order dated 25th August, 2008, ttie respondent declared fhat order dated 25th August, 2008 is legal and requires no interference. In fhe submission of leamed counsel for fhe petitioner, fhis amounts to sitting over the order and proceedtngs offhe Court and, therefore, grosscontempt has been committed. 6. On the ofher hand, lesfmed counsel for the respondents, referrmg to fhe averments made in fhe reply, submitted fhat fhe Divislon Bench of this Court had partfy allowed fhe writ appeal and even though order dated 25th August, 2008, canceling the appointment .,r-^ ^ ^^'- ^'^ -3- ^ • •,.^—^,^J ^. of the petitioner, was quashed, re-instatement of the petittoner was made conditional and was deferred imtil satisfaction is recorded tn an enquiry by ftie CoHector that the petitioner was having experience of more fhan 8 months and Selection Committee rightly awarded 5 marks to him. He submits tliat after the order was passed by this Court, in respectful complismce, (he Collector conducted an enquiiy and in fhat enquiry, after coUecting the materisd, he passed an order on 14th January, 2011, in whlch, it was found that the petitioner could not claim to his credit.teaching experience ofmore fhan 6 months. Tha-efore, the conclusion in the earlier order dated 25th August, 2008 ts just and proper. 7. In the order dated 6.5.2010 passed by tNs Court m W.A. No. 130/10, the AppeUate Court partly aUowed the appeal and thou^i,set aside the order dated 25th Ai^ust, 2008, ty wMch fhe appointment of the petitioner was cancelled, it was further directed that the Collector shall conduct an enquiry and in case it is fond that the petitioner was having experience for more than 8 monftis and Selection Coiiunittee had rightly awarded 5 marks to him, he shall be reinstated forthwifh hi service. It was also observed that witti regard to back wages and othca* benefits, fhe same shaH be decided by fhe CoUector himself. Therefore, (he re- instatement of the petitioner was deferred tiU satisfaction is arrived at by the Collector in an enquiiy. In this view of the matter, I am not able to accept the submission of leamed coiinsel -4- A^. for ftie petitioner that as a result of qu^^ung of the order dated 25th August, 2008, petitioner was entitled to be reinstated forthwith. The occasion for re-instatement of fhe petitioner would have arisen onfy in case the enquiry by fhe Collector would hseve ended in favour of Ihe petitioner. However, m the present case, the CoUector has passed order against fhe petitioner, holdiag that the petitioner does not have to his credit more than 6 monfhs of teaching experience. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, ffae petitioner is not entifled to say that perforce he was entitied to be re-instated or claim salary. 8. In fhese circumstances, it is difficult for fhis Coiut to hold that respondent, who is fhe Chief Executive Qfficer, in any manner committed contempt by not aUowing the petitioner to join fhe duties after the order passed in writ appeal. This is so because the petitioner could have claimed re-instatement only in case the enquiry and the order by the Collector would have ended in his favour, which is not fhe case here. 9. However, before parting wifh fhe case, it is necessary to observe that the Collector, who is not a party in these proceedings, while passingan order on 14th Januaiy,2011, has recorded fhat order dated 25th August, 2008 is in accordance wifh law and requires no interference. Once this Court has quashed ftieorder dated 25th August, 2008, fhere was no occasion for the Collector to record such a finding. Even though, in substance, the CoUector appears ..^^:.^^.^.^^ rr-<v ;'i -5- '% ^. w^ f. to have conducted the enquiry and decided fhe issue as to whether the petitioner was having requislte experience or not, even after having come to fhe conclusion that the petitioner does not have the requisite experience, it was beyond fhe authority of the Collector to declare fhat order dated 25th August, 2008 is legal, because fhe said order no longer existed after it was quashed by fhe Division Bench of fhis Court. It appears fhat tfae Collector did not consider this aspect of fhe matter. However, as the Collector is not a party m these proceedings and has not been noticed, I would refrain from passmg any order in fhese proceedings ^ainst fhe concemed CoUector. 10. With the aforesaid observalaons, fhe petition is finaUy disposed of. 11. Consequently, fhe rule is discharged. Praveen Sd/- Manindra IVtohan Shrivastava Judge 1