SHIV SAGAR DUBEY Vs. SABHAJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present contempt petition it has been alleged that the order of this Court dated 19. 03. 2004 passed in writ petition No. 1112 (S/s)/1997 has not been complied with. The direction of the Court was: "considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that in case the petitioner submits an application for engagement, he shall be engaged again on the same terms and conditions on which he was engaged earlier on daily wage basis. The emoluments which are to be paid to the petitioner i. e. the period for which he was not given any payment but actually worked, shall be paid to him without further delay, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally. " A counter affidavit has been filed. In paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the order dated 19. 03. 2004 has been complied with by passing an order dated 09. 02. 2005. Annexure-CA3 to the counter affidavit is a document by which the petitioner was allowed to join as daily wager thereafter Annexure-CA4 is another document by which it was communicated that no further dues are pending to be given to the petitioner and by another order dated 27. 04. 2005, it was communicated to the petitioner that no further dues are remaining with the department. The order also indicates that the period for which the petitioner worked, he was paid his due wages. However, the petitioner not being satisfied, pursued the matter and by an order of this Court dated 29. 09. 2005, a punishment of civil imprisonment/detention for the period till the rising of the court and a fine to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- was passed against the respondents. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of punishment, the respondent preferred an appeal before this Court and the Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. However as a passing observation, this Court has noted that if the respondent is advised that he had any right to initiate fresh contempt proceedings against the appellant or any other person, he may file a fresh contempt petition and consequent thereto the present contempt petition has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand states, that the order of this Court has been complied with in letter and spirit. It is submitted that although the petitioner has absolutely no right to be considered in view of the latest decision in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1, however, in due compliance of the order of this Court dated 29. 03. 2005, the petitioner was reengaged as daily wager as has been indicated by way of Annexure CA- 3, 4 and 5. According to the counsel for the respondent, the High Court's order has been totally complied with. However, the demand of the petitioner at the moment that he may be regularized on the said post, cannot be granted in terms of Uma Devi's case (Supra) and, therefore, under the circumstances, no contempt proceedings can be initiated afresh. He further submits that the advise given to the petitioner to file a fresh contempt petition is also misconceived in as much as, firstly the order has been complied with and, secondly the period of one year has long passed and the petition is barred by limitation as provided under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. I see force in the averments made by the learned counsel for the respondent. A long drawn litigation has been continuing and has reached even to the extent that the punishment order has also been passed by this Court. In my opinion the order of this Court dated 19. 03. 2004 has been duly complied with in terms of paragraph 14, 15 and 16 of the counter affidavit and Annexure3, 4 and 5 to the said counter affidavit. Under the circumstances no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping the contempt petition pending and, therefore, it deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the contempt petition is dismissed. Notice, if any issued, is discharged. .