BELY GANGULY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS contempt application has been filed by the applicant, who is original respondent in the writ petition being W.P. (S) No.748 of 2010. The said Writ was preferred by the respondent Union of India challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.139 of 2008 dated 6 th October, 2009. By the said order, the Central Administrative Tribunal had quashed and set aside the order of dismissal of the present applicant and had passed an order for reinstatement of the present applicant with consequential benefits.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 6th October, 2009 passed in O.A. No.139 of 2008 was challenged by the Union of India in the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 748 of 2010 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 3 rd February, 2012. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 ought to have allowed the applicant to resume her duties as a Teacher in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Chandrapura, District - Bokaro. It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that under one or the other pretext, the respondent No.2 is not obeying the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court and, therefore, there is a willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court dated 3rd February, 2013 and, therefore, he may be sent to Jail.

(3.) IT is high time for the respondent No.2 to understand that a Teacher who has filed O.A. No.139 of 2008, she has succeeded in her original application. Thereafter, the order passed therein was challenged before this Court by way of W.P. (S) No. No.748 of 2010. This writ petition preferred by the respondent No.2 has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 3 rd February, 2012. Enough time has been lapsed thereafter. When this Court asked a question what is the S.L.P. Number, the counsel for respondent No.2 is not in a position to give the S.L.P. Number. When this Court asked a question what is the last date of adjournment in the S.L.P., the counsel for the respondent No.2 is unable to give any reply to this Court. When this Court again asked a question what is the next date of adjournment, counsel for the respondent No.2 is unable to give the next date of hearing in the S.L.P. Counsel for the respondent No.2 is also unable to state whether any stay has been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the said S.L.P.. Thus, it prima facie appears that the respondent No.2 has to comply with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 3rd February, 2012 in W.P. (S) No.748 of 2010. Enough is enough. Original applicant, who is Teacher, is waiting for justice since long. Even after succeeding in both the proceedings i.e. before the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as before this High Court, she has not been allowed to resume the duties. However, relying upon the statement of the counsel for the respondent No.2, this matter is adjourned upto 4.00 p.m.