HANUMAN MEENA Vs. D.B. GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that although service of the petitioner has been regularised in terms of the order dated 21.12.2010, passed by this Court in SBCWP No. 4956/2003, yet the regularisation has come about not within the period of three months as directed by this Court in the aforesaid order, but effective 27.09.2013. Counsel submits that delay of about three years in regularising the service of the petitioner is unconscionable and wholly arbitrary leading to loss of substantial monthly benefits as also loss of seniority and prospects of future promotion.

(2.) BE as it may, the fact of the matter remains that the petitioner has now been regularised as directed by this Court. There is no doubt that the regularisation of the petitioner has not been considered within the period of three months from the date of passing of the order dated 21.12.2010. However as prayed by Mr. Prahlad Singh, this Court hearing the contempt petition cannot direct that the regularisation be deemed to be effective three months immediately following the order dated 21.12.2010, passed by this Court, both for reason of limitations of contempt jurisdiction as also for the plain language of proviso to Rule 6(4) of the Rajasthan Class IV Services (Recruitment & Other Service Conditions) Rule, 1999 which provides that "the Appointing Authority shall issue appointment order of the person, who is adjudged suitable by the screening committee and appointment shall be effective from the date of issue of such appointment order." [Emphasis Mine]

(3.) SO holding, I would dispose of this contempt petition with the direction that the petitioner would be entitled costs of Rs. 25,000/ - at the hands of the respondents -contemnors to be paid within a period of four months from today.