IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3195 of 2007 1.SIDDHARTH SHANKAR 2.ARJUN KUMAR 3.KAUSHAL KISHORE ALL SONS OF SRI JAGANNATH SAH, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- REGHAI, P.S. SIWAIPATTI, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA 2.MR. R.K.AGRAWAL S/O NOT KNOWN, THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, B.S.N.L., BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA 3.MR. KISHORE KUMAR, SON OF NOT KNOWN, THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, DISTRICT, B.S.N.L. DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA-846003. ----------- 10 01.09.2009 The petitioner through the present application has prayed for initiating contempt proceeding against the opposite parties. Who alleged to have willfully disobeyed and disregard in not complying the order dated 28th of August, 2007 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3070 of 2005 in its true perspective. This Court by the aforesaid order directed the Chief General Manager, Bharat Shanchar Nigam Ltd. (B.S.N.L.) the respondent no.2 in the said writ application to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner to be filled pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court by a speaking order in accordance with law. The claim of the writ petitioners was that all of them have worked as casual labourer along with similarly situated other casual labourer for a very long time, and as such, they claim 2 for regularization of their services as done in case of some others as referred in the writ application on the order of the central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna directing for consideration of their cases for regularization, and on such consideration their services were regularized. The writ petitioner claimed for similar treatment by regularizing their services. The respondent denied the claim of the petitioners on the ground that certificates produced by them in support of the claim that they had worked were not genuine. As such, in order to arrive at a correct conclusion this Court was of the opinion that the matter needs scrutiny and verification of relevant record and examination of the documents/certificates. Accordingly, the petitioners were permitted by the aforesaid order dated 28th August, 2007 to file detailed representation before the respondent no.2, the Chief General Manager, B.S.N.L., enclosing copy of the relevant documents in support of such claim. The respondent no.2 was directed to consider the representation and dispose of the same by speaking order in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners either in person or though advocate since they are labourers. Pursuant to the order of this Court, detailed 3 representation was filed annexing copy of large number of documents as contained in Annexure-2 of this application. On such representation, an order dated 10th April, 2008 Annexure-A was passed after hearing the matter on 26.03.2008. The petitioners complaint that the opposite party no. 2 being the Chief General Manager, B.S.N.L. neither considered the representation himself nor passed the order as directed by this court for considering the representation which involved analyzing of the facts and consideration of relevant documents. The representation was rejected without considering the relevant documents annexed with the representation. It is further alleged that as a matter of fact the opposite party no.2 passed the order on 10th April, 2008 long after filing of the present application. As such, the opposite party no.2 has disobeyed and disregard the aforesaid orders of the Court. A show cause has been filed on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 followed by rejoinder and supplementary show cause. Through the aforesaid show cause stand has been taken that the order has been fully complied with by passing order dated 10th April, 2008 as contained in Annexure-A, however, nothing has been said on not passing the order within 4 the time allowed by the Court. In the show cause the primary ground taken for rejecting the representation is that the payment vouchers evidencing the payments made to the petitioners for the alleged work done as casual labourers were not found on the record by the High Power Committee constituted by the opposite party no.2 to examine the relevant records. The report of the High Power Committee has been annexed to order dated 10th April, 2008 (Annexure-A). The report is dated 22nd February, 2008. The necessary consideration is as to whether the representation was considered and disposed of in its correct perspective in compliance of the order dated 28.08.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3070 of 2005 directing the opposite party no.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner. Accordingly, the order dated 10th April, 2008 as contained in Annexure-A to the show cause was considered. It appears that the opposite party no.2 passed the above order relying upon the report of the High Power Committee constituted by him and recorded the observations of the High Power Committee to the effect that payment vouchers for the relevant period in respect of the petitioners were not found in ACE-II Accounts of the concerned petitioners. The opposite party thereafter 5 recorded that the claim of the petitioner for regularization is not covered under the scheme of the department and with respect to some of the persons whose names were mentioned in the representation, it was observed that they were regularized in the department to honour the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal purely on temporary and ad- hoc basis subject to verification of payment of vouchers. This Court in the contempt proceeding need not go into the correctness or otherwise of the order in question on merits, however, the Court has to be prima facie satisfied that the order has been passed upon considering the representation as also the documents annexed therewith as per the order of this Court. While so considering the Court felt some difficulty in finding out as to which is the speaking order passed by the opposite party no.2 while disposing of the said representation. The order dated 10th April, 2008 as contained in Annexure-A is described as speaking order passed on the representation. Again the letter no. CWJC-3070- 2005/07-08/16 DBN dated 4th March, 2008 vide Annexure-1 annexed to the aforesaid Annexure-A to the show cause claimed to be in continuation of the speaking order no. CWJC-3070-2005/07-08/14 dated 6 25th February, 2008. However, the aforesaid order dated 25th February, 2008 which is also said to be a speaking order is not on the record. Further, there is another order also claimed to be a speaking order, as referred in paragraph 11 of the reply of the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 in rejoinder to the petitioners’ reply wherein it has been stated “that it has been categorically stated in the speaking order dated 28.12.2007 the claim of the petitioners is not covered under the norms of the scheme of the DOT/BSNL launched so far for settlement of regularization claim of the labourers”. The said order is also not on record. Therefore it could not be ascertained as to which is the speaking order which has been passed on the representation of the petitioners. Is it the order dated 28.12.2007 or 25.02.2008 or 10th April, 2008 ?. The order claimed to be speaking order which has been passed on 28.12.2007 and 25.02.2008 both are not on the record of this case. Besides the above, on perusal of the report of the High Power Committee annexed as Annexure-A to the show cause mentions to the effect that since labour cards of the petitioners were not made available to the High Power Committee, hence as per the cases filed by the labourers and photocopy of the 7 diary produced to the High Court were scrutinized and noted separately. It is not clear as to which diary was produced before the High court. The consideration and enquiry was to consider the documents produced by the petitioners with the representation in support of the claim as contained in Annexure-3 to the reply to the show cause. The said documents is said to be the voucher verification report with respect to the petitioners were also annexed as Annexure-A (series) to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in the connected writ application. From the brief facts of the case, as noticed above, it appears that the opposite party no.2 ought to have considered the representation of the petitioner taking note of the allegations made in different paragraphs as also the documents annexed therewith as directed by this Court. It is also not made clear as to which is the speaking order out of the above three orders all said to be speaking order passed on the representation, as referred in the foregoing paragraphs. In the facts and circumstances as noticed above, it however does not appear to this Court that the opposite party no.2 has deliberately violated or disregarded the order of this Court directing him to 8 consider and dispose of the representation by speaking order but the representation is not disposed of as directed which calls for analyzing and scrutiny of facts and the relevant documents. In view of the above, in the opinion of the Court the opposite party no.2 i.e. the Chief General Manager, B.S.N.L., Bihar, Patna be allowed another opportunity to re-consider the representation of the petitioners afresh taking into consideration the allegations made in different paragraphs of such representation as also the copy of the relevant documents annexed therewith in support of the claim. The opposite party no.2 to pass the order in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of four months on receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order. With the above observations and directions the contempt application stands disposed of. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)