CHAMAIL DASS Vs. S S BILLAWRIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS sought regularisation of their services. Their grievance was redressed in terms of Cabinet decision No. 119 of 1980 dated 14 -3 -1980 pursuant to the judgment of this court dated 3 -7 -1990 passed in SWP No. 314/89. It appears that they subsequently sought review of the court judgment on the ground that one on the pleas taken by them in writ petition was release of grades equivalent to the grades of those discharging similar nature of duties on other posts, had missed the attention of the Court. Pursuant thereto the Review Petition No. 627/90 was accepted by the Court by order dated 5 -6 -1992 providing as under: "For the aforesaid reasons this petition is allowed and it is directed that the respondents shall consider the case of petitioners and if they are eligible in accordance with rules, they shall be granted the pay -scales as allowed together similarly situated employees from the date their services have been regularised. This process shall be done within a period of three months from the date this order is served upon the respondents."

(2.) ON respondents failure, it seems, petitioners moved this contempt petition alleging infraction of court order aforesaid Respondents were put on notice. At one stage objections were filed by them on 16 -10 -1992 but the matter, however, lingered on for one reason or the other. On 18 -10 -1994, respondents 5 to 7 were added to the array of respondents and were granted opportunity to comply with the court order. Mr. Sethi representing them has filed the compliance report submitting that the case of petitioners was considered in accordance with rules but it was not possible to grant their claim.

(3.) MR . Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the mandate of the court direction contained in order dated 5 -6 -1992 was to accord consideration to the case of petitioner in accordance with 1980 Rules and not under the rules of 1990 which have been applied by the respondents. According to him, this intention should be read in the court direction even when it was not specified.