MOHAN BAG Vs. R.P. SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 10 of the contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been filed for punishing the respondents for willfully disobeying the order dated 14.7.2011 passed in CWP No. 4935 of 2010. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he had filed CWP No. 4935 of 2010 in the High Court. The petitioner prayed for quashing of order dated 6.11.2006 whereby Leave Travel Concession (LTC) for consecutive block years 2006 -07, 2008 -09 of petitioner and his other eligible family members had been forfeited. The petitioner had also Judgment? yes prayed for quashing office order No. 29/2008 dated 11.3.2008 whereby the petitioner had been ordered to be posted as Deputy Manager (Vigilance) in the Vigilance Department, Parwanoo. In the said order it had been mentioned that petitioner be not posted on a sensitive post.

(2.) THE petition was contested by the respondents including Chairman and Managing Director of Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited as well as Director (Personnel). The then Chairman and Managing Director with the permission of the Court had filed separate reply and to treat the earlier reply filed only on behalf of the Director (Personnel). In the subsequent reply filed by the Chairman and Managing Director, the claim of the petitioner was conceded. It has been stated that after receipt of notice dated 29.3.2010 of the petitioner, the Chairman and Managing Director had already taken appropriate action and directed the Director (Personnel) to modify the office order dated 6.11.2006. The Chairman and Managing Director further stated that he had already passed an order dated 23.1.2008 that the petitioner shall not be posted on the non -sensitive post and offending words reflected in office order No. 29/2008 dated 11.3.2008 were ordered to be removed vide order dated 19.12.2009. The High Court on 14.7.2011 after taking into account the reply of respondent No. 1 especially paras 3, 4, 24 and 25 declared that the petition has become infructuous.

(3.) THE stand taken by respondents No. 1 and 2 in the reply was contrary to the record. The respondent No. 1 in reply to the writ petition acknowledged the claim of the petitioner and also directed respondent No. 2 to take action on the accepted claims of the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 is well aware of the order passed by the High Court. He has deliberately and intentionally not complied the order dated 14.7.2011. The respondent No. 1 is also equally guilty of non -implementation of the order passed by the High Court. It has been lastly stated to take appropriate action against the respondents for disobedience of the Court order.