G S BHATIA Vs. NAVRAJ SANDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition where the respondent had intentionally violated the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 30.1.1995. Vide this order Division Bench of this Court had directed the respondent to grant L.T.C. within 15 days from the receipt of the copy of the order. It is sad to note that the petitioner was not granted this concession in spite of the fact that the copy of the order was admittedly served upon the respondent on 8.3.1995. The petitioner has been retired from service and consequently the relief granted to the petitioner became infructuous. However, the petitioner kept on perusing the remedy and continued to request the respondent to grant L.T.C. as per order of the Division Bench of this Court, but obviously of no avail.

(2.) Reply originally filed by the respondent is most unsatisfactory and gives no other impression except that the respondent slept over the matter and had no bonafide intention to comply with the order of the Court. The facts disclosed by the respondent in the additional affidavit dated 12.10.1995 have persuaded the Court not to take stringent action of punishing the respondent for contempt of Court.

(3.) Mr. N.S. Bhinder, D.A. Haryana upon instructions from Ms. Navraj Sandhu, Director Secondary Education, Haryana, Chandigarh who is also present in Court states that she for herself and on behalf of the employees of the Department tenders unconditional and unqualified apology for not complying with the order of the Court. Learned Counsel further submits that the Director gives an undertaking to this Court that the wife of the petitioner who is employed in the same Department, would be given L.T.C. which obviously includes the petitioner and the benefit of L.T.C. to be provided to the wife of the petitioner would be for the status which the petitioner held while in office. In the additional affidavit filed by the Director, it appears that the default has resulted because of some inaction on the part of some employees against whom departmental enquiry had been initiated. It is for the reasons stated above and the intention on the part of the respondent now to comply with the order of the Court positively that has persuaded this Court to accept the apology and not to proceed further in the contempt proceedings against the said respondent because the paramount consideration before the Court in such proceedings is that the order passed by the Court should be complied with. Of course, this is not as a matter of rule, there may be cases where the Court may have to take appropriate action against the condemner even if they undertook to comply with the order of the Court. This would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.