SHAKUNTLA SINGH Vs. RAJIV MEHRISHI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is petition for seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the direction issued by this Court in its judgment dated 18.03.2015 passed in SWP No.1397/2013.

(2.) Few background facts which are necessary for the disposal of this petition needs to be noticed. The husband of the petitioner late Sh. Ram Parkash Singh was a member of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF for short). While he was serving in the Recruitment Training Centre (RTC) CRPF Humhama, Srinagar (J &K), he was transferred to 32 Bn. He challenged his order of transfer in SWP No.725/2001 which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court on 28.05.2001 providing that the petitioner would file representation before the competent authority within one week and the same would be disposed of within two weeks thereafter. The representation submitted by the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid direction was turned down by the Director General CRPF. As the deceased in compliance to the order of his transfer had not reported for his duties to 32 Bn, accordingly, departmental proceedings for the charge of unauthorised absence from duties were initiated against him. On being found guilty in the departmental inquiry, the deceased was dismissed from the service and the period of his unauthorised absence was treated as dies non by the respondents. The order of dismissal was challenged by the petitioner's husband in SWP No.S-650/2005. The writ petition was allowed and the order of dismissal impugned was quashed. The respondents, were, however, directed to pass a fresh order after complying with the Rules within a period of four months from the date a copy of order was served upon them. The respondents did not accept the judgment of the Single judge, therefore took the matter to the Division Bench in LPA(SW) No.199/2011. Learned Division Bench vide its judgment dated 22.11.2011 concluded that the inquiry proceedings initiated against the deceased husband of the petitioner were one sided and not a fair inquiry in its true sense and therefore, violative of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Division Bench upheld the quashing of order of dismissal dated 18.03.2004 ordered by the learned writ court. Having upheld the quashing of order of dismissal of the husband of the petitioner by the writ Court and because of impossibility of initiating fresh inquiry against the delinquent due to his death, learned Division Bench, with a view to maintain equitable balance held the legal representatives/dependants of the deceased entitled to monetary benefits which would have accrued to them had the petitioner not been dismissed from the service. The operative portion of directions contained in the Paragraph No. 34 of the judgment of the Division Bench needs to be reproduced here as under:-

(3.) In compliance to the direction of the Division Bench, Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Hyderabad issued a detailed order bearing No.J.II-32/2012/Estt-3 dated 22.03.2012. The amounts which were payable to the petitioner were disbursed, however, the petitioner was held entitled to any back wages on the principle of "no work no pay". The period of absence, however, was directed to be reckoned for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. This communication was assailed by the petitioner in SWP No.1397/2013. The petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition interalia prayed for the following directions: