LAWS(GJH)-2004-6-40

SAIYED FAIZMOHMED NOORMOHMED Vs. K KAILASNATHAN IAS

Decided On June 30, 2004
SAIYED FAIZMOHMED NOORMOHMED Appellant
V/S
K KAILASNATHAN - IAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt petition is pending for final hearing since 2000 for about more than four years. The grievance raised in this petition is that in spite of direction given earlier by the learned Single Judge when the petitioner has approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 246 of 1987, the respondents have not complied with the same. The said petition was disposed by the learned Single Judge on 15.10.1999 when the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and the respondents were directed to treat the petitioner as if he is appointed on the post of Extension Educator with effect from 19.4.1975, and the petitioner was entitled for all the consequential benefits, namely, continuity of service, confirmation and seniority as well as salary for the period from the date of his appointment till the date on which actually he was given appointment. The arrears of salary payable to the petitioner were ordered to be calculated by respondent No. 1 within a period of one month from the receipt of the writ and the arrear amount so fixed be paid to him within a period of one month thereafter. The learned Single Judge has also accordingly while allowing the petition filed by the petitioner, given direction to that effect. Prior to the filing of the said petition, the petitioner approached this Court as back as in the year 1975 and the application being Special Civil Application No. 1694 of 1975 was disposed of on the statement being recorded from the counsel of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and as per the statement the Court has disposed of the matter on 13.11.1978. The learned Single Judge while disposing of Special Civil Application No. 246 of 1987 has also reproduced the order passed while deciding Special Civil Application No. 1694 of 1975.

(2.) The learned Single Judge has, while deciding Special Civil Application No. 246 of 1987 in paragraph No. 7, given directions which read as under:

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the directions given by the learned Single Judge there was no compliance of the directions from the Corporation and accordingly a legal notice through advocate was issued on 6.2.1999 and under the said notice the petitioner has brought to the notice of the respondent authority to carry out the directions of the Court immediately failing which the petitioner will be constrained to initiate contempt proceedings. We may also observe that the petitioner due to his superannuation has retired from the service of the Corporation on 30.11.1999 and as the learned Single Judge has granted relief in favour of the petitioner on 15.10.1999, hardly within a period of one and half month due to superannuation he retired from the service and accordingly the petitioner was only entitled to consequential relief as per the directions of the High Court and promotion on the higher post when other junior persons to the petitioner were selected and appointed on higher posts. As per the select list the petitioner was at serial No. 7 and though he was at serial No. 7 other juniors were promoted and when the High Court has accepted the case of the petitioner he was considered to be promoted when his juniors were promoted on higher post. As there was no compliance by the respondent authority, contempt petition is filed on 5.7.2000. Affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the respondent, namely, by Smt. Kinnariben Mehta, Family Planning, Welfare Officer family Welfare Bureau, Ahmedabad, and she has annexed certain documents. Rejoinder affidavit is filed by the petitioner and in the said rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has also annexed certain documents.