1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 165/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2695/2001 (Vijay Krishnarao Mohite and another vrs. Shivnath Namdeorao Dongare, Tahsildar and another) ................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................... Shri R.M.Ahirrao, counsel for petitioners Shri Mujumdar, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for respondents ... CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 3rd DECEMBER, 2010. 1] This contempt petition complains about willful disobedience/breach of the judgment and order dated 24th November, 2009, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2695/2009. By the said judgment, this Court had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 1.12.1995 and all subsequent Government Resolutions including the Government Resolution dated 21.4.1999 and 30.1.2004 for regularization or 2 absorption of the respondent-employee. 2] Shri Ahirrao, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that if all these three Government Resolutions are read together then it leaves no option to the respondents but to regularize the services of the petitioner. The stand of the State Government on affidavit is that the case of the petitioner has been considered in the light of all the three Government Resolutions and it is not possible in view of the terms and conditions of the said Government Resolutions to absorb the petitioner. 3] Shri Ahirrao, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon para (9) of the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1999 SC 3215 [Kapildeo Prasad Sah and others vrs. State of Bihar] , which is reproduced below. “9. For holding the respondents to have committed contempt, civil contempt at that, it has to be shown that there has 3 been wilful disobedience of the judgment or order of the Court. Power to punish for contempt is to be resorted to when there is clear violation of the Court's order. Since notice of contempt and punishment for contempt is of far- reaching consequence, these powers should be invoked only when a clear case of wilful disobedience of the Court's order has been made out. Whether disobedience is wilful in a particular case depends on the facts and circumstances of that case. Judicial orders are to be properly understood and complied. Even negligence and carelessness can amount to disobedience particularly when attention of the person is drawn to the Court's orders and its implication. Disobedience of Court's order strikes at the very root of rule of law on which our system of governance is based. Power to punish for contempt is necessary for the maintenance of effective legal system. It is exercised to prevent perversion of the course of justice.' 4] He has urged that the action of the respondents denying the petitioners' the absorption on the ground that the petitioner is not eligible in terms of the said Government Resolutions is nothing but the negligence and carelessness and 4 hence the same amounts to disobedience of the Court's order and hence, contempt of court. According to him, the Court has to understand the order and its implication to find out whether there was negligence and carelessness on the part of the respondents in complying the directions. 5] It is not in dispute that the Writ Petition No.2695/2001 was challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court, dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner, claiming absorption in service. This Court has not set aside the order of the Industrial Court, dismissing the complaint. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were working as Muster-Attendance since 1982 and their services were terminated in 1988 and the complaints were also filed in the year 1988. It is also not in dispute that the claim in the complaint was not on the basis of Government Resolutions dated 1.12.1995, 21.4.1999 and 30.1.2002. Thus, till this date, there is no adjudication by any competent court to determine the eligibility of the petitioners for absorption in terms of Government 5 Resolutions dated 1.12.1995, 21.4.1999 and 30.1.2002. The Government has considered the case of the petitioners in the light of Government Resolutions, which is apparent from the order dated 17.9.2010, produced on record. If the order of the Government is not legal and proper then that cannot be the reason for exercising the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE Rvjalit