HARIBHAI MERAGHBHAI PARMAR Vs. OMPRAKASH CHITLANGE MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present applications have been filed for the following reliefs:

(2.) At the outset, learned advocate Ms.Pandya has invited attention of this Court to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge vide order dtd. 2/3/2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.19462 of 2017 and allied matters more particularly, in paragraph No.29. She has submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the applicants-petitioners are reinstated in service however, since no continuity was granted, the applicants- petitioners filed Letters Patent Appeal No.446 of 2020 and by the order dtd. 23/9/2022, the Division Bench of this Court passed the order of treating the service of the applicants- petitioners as continuous for all purposes. She has further submitted that after filing of the writ petitions, and on issuance of notice, the respondent authorities passed the order dtd. 23/2/2023 treating the service period of the applicants-petitioners as continuous for all purposes. However, she has submitted that the applicants-petitioners are entitled to the benefits as per the settlement. Thus, she has submitted that in fact, the applicants- petitioners are not granted the arrears as well as the benefits arising out of the settlement and hence, the contempt proceedings may be initiated.

(3.) As noticed hereinabove and on the submissions made by the learned advocate for the applicants- petitioners, it cannot be said that there is willful and deliberate disobedience or non- compliance of the directions issued by this Court. Initially, learned Single Judge vide order dtd. 2/3/2020 passed in group of petitions being Special Civil Application No.19462 of 2017 and allied matters, had directed the respondents to reinstate the applicants-petitioners and accordingly, they were reinstated and hence, part of the order has been complied with however, by the order dtd. 23/9/2022 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.446 of 2020 and allied matters, the Division Bench of this Court further directed that the present applicants-petitioners shall be treated as continuous from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement for all purposes since no benefits of continuity of service was granted and arrears were not offered, the applicants-petitioners filed the present applications seeking initiation of the contempt proceedings. During pendency of the present applications, the respondents have passed the order dtd. 23/2/2023, wherein they have stated that the service of the applicants-petitioners would be treated as continuous. It is grievance of the applicants-petitioners that in fact, they are also entitled to arrears and benefits arising out of the settlement entered between the employees and respondents.