LAXMI NARAIN Vs. R.N. PRASHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS contempt petition filed under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for brevity, 'the Act') presents a classical example of officers and bureaucratic booby-traps showing how the orders of this Court could be systematically eroded in bits and pieces leading to its eventual flouting by those who are bound to follow them. Brief facts :

(2.) IN December 1993, the employees working in the Transport Department of the State of Haryana decided to abstain from work and went on strike. The respondent-State considering the emergent situation created by the strike invited applications for filling up the vacancies/posts and made fresh appointments. The Transport Department made fresh appointments on adhoc basis without offering appointment to those who were on duty during the strike period despite the fact that the seniority list of such employees had been prepared in 1995. The Transport Commissioner has directed the preparation of seniority list and had allocated the petitioner to Rohtak Depot where his name in the waiting list was at No. 1. This fact is clear from the letter dated 23.6.1995 written by the Transport Commissioner and another letter dated 28.8.1997 vide which it has been assured to the petitioner that he was fully eligible for the post of Helper and would be appointed against the vacant post as and when available. A copy of this letter is placed on the record as Annexure P.4. However, the respondents resorted to pick and choose policy and appointed persons whose names appeared at Sr. Nos. 38 and 40 respectively. It was alleged that during the month of August 1995 they were appointed as Helper on regular basis. A copy of the appointment letter of Pardeep Kumar whose name appeared at Sr. No. 38 is appended as Annexure P.5. Some of the employees appointed during strike period filed Civil Writ Petition No. 12509 of 1998 which was allowed on 5.4.1999. A Division Bench of this Court issued various directions in respect of the persons who were appointed during the strike period. The Division Bench during the course of arguments felt constrained to observe that the situation which has arisen before the Court was created by the Transport Department themselves because they failed to abide by the rule of seniority while absorbing who were appointed during the period of strike. The observation of the Division Bench and the detailed directions issued on 5.4.1999 reads as under:

(3.) A copy of the order was sent and communicated to the respondents on 18.9.2000 under registered cover AD. A copy of the postal receipt dated 18.9.2000 is appended as Annexure P-13. Thereafter, a period of 2 months expired in the last week of November 2000.