PUSHPA ABROL Vs. J.D. GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Reply on behalf of the respondent has been filed in court today. The same is taken on record. Copy has been given to the counsel for the respondent.

(2.) Affidavit/reply obviously does not meet all the contentions raised in the contempt petition. The effort on the part of the respondents seems to be that the order of the Court has been complied with and, therefore, there was no need to meet the allegations made in the contempt petition specifically. I do not think this approach as the correct one.

(3.) As is clear from the petition that petitioner approached this Court by means of a petition under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for disobedience of the order passed by the Letters Patent Bench in L.P.A. No. 348 of 1992 dated 8.8.1995. Without going into the detailed facts of this case, it will be appropriate to note that every order passed in favour of the petitioner in spite of the fact that it was supported by various judgments of the Court was taken up before the Letters Patent Bench and then the Hon'ble Supreme Court. All the judgments came in favour of the petitioner and they were granted relief. The S.L.P. preferred by the State was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 18.3.1996. In spite of the fact that all the judgments of all the courts were pronounced against the State. The State did not implement the directions of the court till today. This contempt petition was filed and in reply to this petition, it is stated that vide Annexure R-1 annexed to the reply, the pay/salary of the petitioners have been fixed in the respective scales on the basis of the directions issued by the Letters Patent Bench. Still the unfortunate part is that not a single penny was paid to the petitioner till date. The petitioner has taken recourse to all possible lawful ways of having the order of the Court implemented but without much result. What the respondents have done cannot be said to be proper compliance of the orders of the Court and there is no doubt to the fact that the petitioner has been denied what was due to him in accordance with the orders of the Court. These actions are apparently and clearly violative of the principles governing administration of justice and certainly hamper proper dispensation of justice to the individual who has approached the Court and upon being successful has exhausted all legal remedies available to him before filing a petition for contempt.