RAM CHANDRA YADAV Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS M.J.C. application has been filed complaining deliberate and wilful violation of the direction of this Court dated 14.12.1998 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 564 of 1998 contained in Annexure -1 with a prayer to hold the Contemnor -Opposite parties guilty for contempt and thereby suitably punish them for non compliance of the said direction of this Court.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this contempt application are that the petitioner, who claims to be the adopted son of late Birat Gope, who died as Class IV employee in the Bihar State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board on 6.3.1987, was appointed on compassionate ground as Class IV employee (unskilled khalasi) in the Board vide letter dated 1.2.1992 and he accordingly joined the service on 7.2.1992. Before that the Board granted a sum of Rs. 500/ - to perform the funeral and ritual work of late Birat Gope and also released post death retirement benefit, such as, gratuity amount, leave encashment, G.P.F amount, Group Savings Scheme amount and other relevant payments of late Birat Gope in favour of the petitioner being adopted son. All of a sudden the Superintending Engineer of the Board at Gaya called for an explanation from him for not submitting the required certificate as per provision of Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, and, ultimately his service was terminated under the orders of the Joint Secretary of the Board against which he filed representation and produced the relevant documents before the concerned authority which was also rejected on 25.9.1997. Thereafter he filed the aforementioned writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 564 of 1998. before this Court assailing the validity of the order of his termination, which after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Board was disposed of vide order dated 14.12.1998 (Annexure -1), violation of which has been complained.

(3.) THE claim for appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of adoptive father Birat Gope, who was in the employment of the Board, was rejected on the ground that he was not validly adopted son. Learned counsel then appearing for the petitioner after realising that he will have to seek declaration with respect to the above in Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, where the petitioner will have ample opportunity of leading oral as well as documentary evidence, sought for disposal of the writ application with a direction that after such a declaration, the petitioner may move the Board for appointment on compassionate ground along with a copy of the judgment of the Civil Court. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the Board and having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court found that the prayer on behalf of the petitioner was quite reasonable and justified and under such circumstances disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the petitioner may approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for a declaration that he was validly adopted son of late Birat Gope and in case of his success he shall move the authority in the Board along with a copy of the judgment, thereafter the Board shall consider his claim for appointment on compassionate ground afresh in the light of the judgment of the Civil Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 48 of 1999 seeking a declaration that he is validly adopted son of late Birat Gope in the Court of Ist Subordinate Judge, Gaya, who on detailed consideration of evidence led before him gave its judgment on 31.1.2000, in which the Court held that the petitioner is validly adopted son of late Birat Gope and accordingly, decreed the suit on contest. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, contained in Annexure -1, the petitioner moved the authority, namely, Chairman and the Secretary of the Board on 4.5.2000 for cancelling his termination order and reinstatement in service in continuation of his appointment letter dated 1.2.1992 and also to provide the consequential benefit of the same vide Annexure -3. On 26th May, 2000 the Joint Secretary of the Board vide its letter, contained in Annexure -4, required the petitioner to furnish the certified copy of the plaint and written statement filed in the suit in connection with the examination of his matter. However, the petitioner after receipt of Annexure -4 filed the present M.J.C. application on 26.6.2000 alleging deliberate and wilful violation of the direction of this Court to consider his claim for appointment on compassionate ground afresh in the light of the judgment of the Civil Court.