JAGDISH RAM Vs. JAI RAJ SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had filed a Writ Petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.1033 of 2017, praying for that his services may be regularized and for the relief that he may be granted a minimum of pay-scale. The Writ Petition came up for consideration before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 15.05.2017, and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 15.05.2017, had disposed of the Writ Petition which was based on an earlier judgment which was rendered on 11.04.2017, in Writ Petition No.1762 of 2014. The judgment based on which the Writ Petition of the petitioner was decided, contained the following directions:-

(2.) The direction given by the judgment of 11.04.2017, to be read with judgment dated 15.05.2017, the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and for the grant of minimum of pay-scale. In fact, the said judgment dated 11.04.2017 also was yet again was based upon an earlier judgment which was rendered in bunch of writ petitions, with leading writ petition, being Writ Petition No.1721 of 2015, as decided in a bunch of cases by the judgment of 27.03.2017. The judgment as rendered in the case of the petitioner on 15.05.2017 in Writ Petition No.1033 of 2017, was made a subject matter of the challenge in a special appeal, being Special Appeal No.875 of 2017, State of Uttarakhand vs. Jagdish Ram and the Division Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 10.11.2017, had disposed of the Special Appeal with the directions as contained in Para 4 of the same judgment of Division Bench dated 10.11.2017, which is quoted hereunder:-

(3.) The petitioner alleging its non-compliance had preferred this Contempt Petition on 06.09.2020, which was reported by the Registry to be barred by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, but the argument as extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner today at the time of hearing of this Contempt Petition, was that since the respondent had passed an order on 04.09.2020, by virtue of which certain persons who were junior, to the petitioner have been regularized and he portrayed that those persons whose services have been regularized, some of them since happened to be junior to the petitioner, hence, he had contended that for him; the cause of action arose only when the order of regularization dated 04.09.2020, was passed by the respondents. Believing the said assertion, the notices were issued to the respondents by this Court by an order dated 18.09.2020, and in response thereto, the respondents have filed the compliance affidavit on 03.11.2020.