V R PREMALATHA Vs. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH IAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner complains of non-compliance with Annexure I judgment of this Court, which reads thus: "Petitioner approached this court with certain grievances regarding payment of wages and regularisation in the post of Part-time Sweeper. In view of the intervening developments pursuant to the government order dated 25.11.2005, in case the petitioner has still any grievance left, she may approach the 3rd respondent in which case appropriate action in accordance with law in the matter in the light of the government order referred to above will be taken by the 3rd respondent within another two months. While taking action as above, the eligibility of the petitioner for additional remuneration based on the pay scales applicable to her shall be considered and the eligible arrears shall be disbursed to the petitioner within another two months." According to the petitioner, pursuant to the judgment, the petitioner submitted Annexure II representation. But the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the 3rd respondent has not received Annexure II representation. THErefore, I directed the petitioner to produce proof of having submitted the same. THE petitioner did not produce any proof. It is admitted that the same was sent by ordinary post. But on the basis of the documents produced along with the affidavit dated 17.10.2010, the petitioner would contend that the respondents had in fact passed further orders, which would go to show that Annexure II was received. But the learned Government Pleader would submit that those orders were not passed on Annexure II representation, but the same were passed in view of the contempt case taking into account the directions in the judgment itself. THE petitioner would now contend the orders passed are not in accordance with the above said judgment. According to him, as per that judgment, this Court had directed that the petitioner's claim should be considered in accordance with the Government order dated 25.11.2005. I am of opinion that insofar as an order has been passed as directed in the judgment, it is upto the petitioner to challenge the same appropriately, since I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out case for initiating action under the Contempt of Court Act insofar as I do not find any deliberate disobedience of the directions in the judgment. Accordingly, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the orders now passed appropriately, this contempt case is closed.