SHARIEF UD-DIN Vs. HARBANS SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS contempt petition seeking implementation of the judgment of this court in writ petition no. 1226/85, decided by the Single Bench on 26.5.1988, is the fourth in succession and arises in the facts and circumstances a resume of which is as follows:

(2.) SINCE the petitioner has placed reliance on different court orders to make out a case for initiating these proceedings, a reference to each one of these court orders becomes inevitable. First of all, the judgment in Writ Petition No. 1226/85 dated 26.5.1988 which is sought to be implemented, may be analysed. Its operative portion reads: "Accordingly, it is directed by a writ of mandamus that the petitioners be treated as employees of the respondent No. 1. and allow them to hold those posts which they held prior to passing of order No. 420 -Agri of 1981 dated 25.7.1981 and prior to the order No:85 -Agri of 1982 dated 28.1.1982. It is also directed that the seniority of the petitioners should be maintained as employees of the Government Agriculture College, Sopore and they be relieved from the Agriculture Department for being posted at appropriate places with the respondent No.1" The direction is thus threefold: (i) the petitioners be treated employees of the Sher -i -Kashmir University of Agriculture Sciences & Technology (for short, SKUAST); (ii) they were to hold the same posts which they were holding at the time order no. 420 -Agri of 1981 dated 25.07.1981 and Order No: 85 -Agri of 1982 dated 28.1.1982, were issued; and (iii) the seniority position of the petitioners as employees of the Govt. Agriculture College, Sopore, was to be maintained notwithstanding their absorption in the SKUAST.

(3.) THE implementation of this judgment is, thus, at the center of the controversy in these proceedings. In Contempt Petition No. 229/88 this Court vide order dated 27.1.1989 directed implementation of the judgment by 30.1.1989 when LPA No. 44 of 1988 challenging the judgment was pending disposal. Nothing is mentioned about the final outcome of this petition though the direction does not appear to have been implemented. Meanwhile Contempt Petition No. 256/91 was filed about which a reference is made in the judgment of the Division Bench dated 6.5.1996 by virtue of which LPA No. 44/88 was decided holding that - "A copy of the order dated 1.3.1994 issued by the Registrar, S.K. University of Agriculture Sciences and Technology, Shalimar Campus, Srinagar, is produced by the learned counsel for the respondents. We have perused the same. In view of the benefits arising out of the said order to respondents 5 to 13 their grievance have come to an end. In so far as Mr. Janki Nath Kakroo respondent NO. 12 is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents submits that he having been retired earlier to the aforesaid order (dated 1.3.1994) the consideration for his grievance would not arise In view of the foregoing, this appeal stands disposed of. Consequently Contempt proceedings in Contempt Petition No. 256 of 1991 shall stand dropped." So the proceedings in Contempt Petition No. 256/91 came to be dropped which indicated that Contempt Petition No. 229/88 had already been decided. Subsequently another Contempt Petition No. 279/96 was filed by the petitioners in which one of us (Parray J.) vide order dated 12.2.1997 directed the respondents to make payment of the arrears which have accrued to the petitioners in terms of order No. 78/Estt of 1994 dated 1.3.1994, issued by the SKUAST. However, this direction appears to have been challenged by the University in L.PA. which was decided on 22.4.1997 with the following observations: "We are of the view that the University was bound to decide the claim of the petitioner with regard to the benefits as has been mentioned in para 4 of the order dated 1.3.1994. In these circumstances we direct the University to take a decision with regard to the claim of the petitioner for giving benefits to the respondent No.1 in the first instance within a period of one month. With these observations this appeal is disposed of. In view of this order it will serve no purpose if the contempt proceedings are allowed to continue. They are also dropped but respondent No. 1 has liberty to seek appropriate remedy if the University passed an order adverse to his interests." In compliance to this direction, the SKUAST passed a fresh order dated 20.05.1997 holding that the petitioner has already got much more than what was due to him. This order, according to the petitioner, violates the directions to the Division Bench dated 22.4.1997 and consequently the judgment dated 26.05.1998. He, therefore, seeks implementation of the judgment of the Single Bench dated 26 05.1998 and that of the Division Bench dated 22.04.1997