BRIJESH KUMARI PALIWAL Vs. GUMAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for contempt alleging non-compliance of the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench on 19.8.2003 by which the respondent-State of Rajasthan had been directed to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the provisions of Section 7 of the Rajasthan (Regulation of Appointment to Public Services and Regularisation of Staff) Act, 1999. It was however, further made clear by the Division Bench that till the regular appointment are made or some fault is found with the conduct or service of the petitioner/petitioners, the service of the petitioners shall not be terminated. It appears that the respondent-State of Rajasthan filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the aforesaid judgment and order of the Division Bench and the special leave petition bearing No. 4347/2004 was disposed of by observing therein that the petitioner-meaning thereby the respondent-State of Rajasthan herein would consider the application of the legal representatives of the deceased Ashok Kumar Paliwal according to the rules at the earliest. In so far as the regularisation of the employment of the petitioner is concerned, it had also been observed that one of the legal representatives of Ashok Kumar Paliwal is seeking employment but thereafter nothing has been observed as to what would be the fate of the claim in regard to regular appointment and in the connected case of Pankaj Kumar and ors., the plea of regular appointment has been stayed.

(2.) From this order of the Supreme Court, we have not been able to gather any direction which could impress upon this Court that the respondent-contemnor had been directed to positively grant appointment to the petitioners or to allow him to continue on the post as the order merely directed the petitioner-State, the respondent herein, to consider the application of the legal representatives of the deceased Ashok Kumar Paliwal according to the rules at the earliest as recorded hereinbefore. The special leave petition was thereafter disposed of in the light of the aforesaid direction. Hence, in absence of any categorical direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to straightaway grant appointment to the petitioner or to allow him to continue on a regular basis, it is difficult for this Court to initiate a proceeding for contempt against the respondent-State. The petition for contempt perhaps could have been entertained only if there had been a categorical directions in the order of the Apex Court rejecting the special leave petition against the order of the Division Bench but the special leave petition filed by the respondent-State in fact had not been rejected but was disposed of with a categorical direction. The counsel for the respondent State Mr. Shyam Arya stated that the order of the Supreme Court has already been complied as his claim for appointment was not found sustainable in view of the rules. That order might be a subject matter of challenge before the appropriate forum by way of an independent petition or in the alternative a clarification petition for contempt might lie before the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself. In so far as this petition for contempt before the High Court is concerned, it is difficult to entertain it in view of the position stated hereinbefore. The contempt petition, therefore, stands rejected. The notice stands discharged.