SHAMBHOO Vs. H L PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, read with S. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

(2.) Shambhoo, the petitioner is one of the petitioners in writ petition No. 598 (SS) of 1998 which is still pending before this Court. An interim order was issued in the writ petition on 17-5-1999 whereby the respondents 1 to 4 of the said petition were directed not to make any appointment or recruitment or engagement otherwise than through the agency of a contractor. The members of Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Mazdoor Sangh were also not to be displaced from their respective posts, if their services have not already been terminated. Again on 25/10/1999, this Court directed the opposite-parties to engage the petitioners of the aforesaid writ petition on daily wage basis keeping in view their past services rendered in the Corporation. Shambhoo and some other petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition No. 3294 of 1987 and a Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 14-5-1987, directed that the members of the petitioner shall not be displaced from their jobs, if they have not already been terminated. The opposite parties on their own sweet will and deliberately disobeyed the orders referred to above and engaged about 132 new persons ignoring the claim of the petitioner Shambhoo and other petitioners of writ petition No. 598(SS) of 1998. The opposite parties were expected not to have ignored the orders referred to above and engaged new persons. Shambhoo Nath and 16 other persons made a representation on 16-11-1999 to the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, opposite party No.1 and requested to honour and implement the orders of the Court. A copy of the said representation is Annexure 5 to the petition. When the opposite parties failed to comply with the Court's orders, the petitioner was compelled to file this contempt petition.

(3.) The Senior Regional Manager, Mr. H. L. Prasad, who had been transferred to Delhi by the time of filing his counter-affidavit on 15-5-2000, asserted that all sincere efforts were made to induct the petitioners on the job and nearly 217 number of required labourers had been engaged with effect from 1-3-1998. It was pleaded further that neither he had committed breach of the Court's orders nor ignored the claim of the petitioners.