LAWS(ALL)-1994-4-31

HARI RAM GUPTA Vs. GAJENDRA PAL SINGH

Decided On April 13, 1994
HARI RAM GUPTA Appellant
V/S
GAJENDRA PAL SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a contempt petition filed under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The allegation is that the opposite parties have failed to act in terms of the order dated 30-3-1993 passed by this Court in writ petition no. nil of 1993, Hari Ram Gupta v. Chairman U. P. State Electricity Board. Lucknow, which was finally disposed of with certain directions. So far as these proceedings are concerned, the relevant portion of that order is reproduced Below ;

(2.) THE precise complaint in these proceedings is thai the Chief Engineer, Bareilly zone, U. P. State Electricity Board, Bareilly, opposite party no. 2, has deliberately and wilfully failed to decide the representation which was filed by the petitioner applicant before him on 19-4-1993 alongwith a certified copy of the order passed by this Court. In order to appreciate the controversy up for consideration, it is necessary to set out few facts. THE applicant (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) is an Executive Engineer in the U. P. State Electricity Department and was transferred from Kanpur to Bareilly in June, 1992 initially under the Superintending Engineer, Tubewell and Electrification Circle, U. P. S.E.B., Janakpur, Bareilly and then he was transferred under the Superintending Engineer, .Electricity Urban Distribution Circle U. P. S.E.B. Bareilly where he joined on 30-9-92. THE petitioner had taken leave from 22-10-1992 to 27-10-1992 which he got extended from time to time due to his alleged ill health. According to the petitioner the Superintending Engineer, opposite party no 3, did not permit him to join his duties when he returned from leave. Consequently be made a representation dated 19-1-1993 to the Chairman, U. P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow, opposite party no. 1 on which no action was taken. THE petitioner also asserts that he had applied for a loan from his general provident fund in connection with the marriage of his daughter which was not paid to him dispite sanction and the marriage had to be postponed. With the case aforesaid, the petitioner approached to this Court by filing a writ petition in which the order, dated 30- 3-1993, was passed directing the concerned Chief Engineer to decide the representation within a period of two months from the date it was filed by the petitioner. It is this order which is alleged to have been violated in these proceedings.

(3.) I have considered this submission carefully. The defence taken in the counter-affidavit is that payment of the loan amount could not be made because of the delay in obtaining the funds from the U. P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow. ft is pleaded that there was no wilful action or deliberate design on the part of the opposite parties. Having regird to the explanation furnished in the counter-affidavit this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter be left there and no action in these proceedings is called for. This brings me to the other issue. It is admitted to the petitioner that consequent upon his representation dated 19-4-1993 he was required by opposite party no. 2 by letter dated 11-5-1993 to appear before him in connection with the disposal of the representation. The petitioner did appear but on 14-5-1993 when his statement was recorded. There is also no dispute that on hearing the grievances of the petitioner, opposite party no. 2 by his order dated 1-6-1993 directed the petitioner to join his duties under opposite party no. 3 and the petitioner did join on 19-5-1993. What followed thereafter is a subject-matter of dispute on which the contesting parties have their own versions. According to the petitioner, opposite party no. 3 refused to countersign the charge-sheet which was accompained by relevant documents, medical certificates etc. It is the petitioner's case that no account of this conduct of opposite party no. 3 the petitioner was virtually not permitted to join his duties for until the charge certificate is not countersigned by the concerned controlling authority, the formality of taking over charge is not complete.