CMP No. 11068 of 2015 in COPC No. 276 of 2015 and CWP No. 1259 of 2015. Case: Court on its own motion Vs P.C. Dhiman and Ors.. Himachal Pradesh High Court
| Case Number | CMP No. 11068 of 2015 in COPC No. 276 of 2015 and CWP No. 1259 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate and Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate and For Respondents: Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, Anup Rattan, Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General |
| Judges | Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J. and Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | March 15, 2016 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh High Court |
Judgment:
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
-
On 23.04.2015, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court drew contempt proceedings against the respondents for having, prima facie, violated the orders passed by this Court on 18.02.2015.
-
The factual matrix giving rise to this petition is that one Sunita Pandey alongwith two other petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioners) filed CWP No. 1259 of 2015 before this Court wherein it was averred that they came to be appointed as Lecturers in the subject of psychology pursuant to the policy framed by the Government and commonly known as "Para Teachers Policy, 2003".
-
A policy was framed by the Government to regularize the services of those Para Teachers, who had completed uninterrupted service of 10 years vide Office Order dated 18.12.2014. Pursuant to such order, as many as 439 Para Teachers came to be regularized as PGTs. The names of the writ petitioners did not figure in the aforesaid order dated 18.12.2014. However, a subsequent notification was issued on 03.01.2015 wherein it was stated that the Lecturers in the subjects of Psychology/Electronics and Home Science would be offered appointment as TGTs and not PGTs since these had been declared as dying cadre.
-
On 15.01.2015, the respondents issued another notification whereby the PTA Teachers in the subject of Home Science were offered the post of PGT. On 19.01.2015, another notification was issued whereby the services of the writ petitioners came to be regularized as TGTs. It was against the aforesaid notifications whereby the writ petitioners had been appointed as TGTs and not PGTs that CWP No. 1259 of 2015 came to be filed by them. Alongwith the writ petition, an application for interim relief was also filed and operative portion of the prayer clause reads as under:-
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this application may kindly be allowed and during the pendency of the writ petition, non applicants respondents may kindly be directed to direct the Principals of the concerned schools/DIETs where the applicants were performing their duties to allow the applicants to perform their duties as PGTs, Psychology and further to pay salary and emoluments to the applicants as is paid to the other PGTs who have been regularized vide annexure P-1 dated 18.12.2014, in the interest of justice.
-
The petition came up for consideration on 18.02.2015 and this Court passed the following orders:-
CMP No. 2053/2015
Allowed and disposed of.
CWP No. 1259/2015 & CMP No. 2054/2015
Notice. Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He prays for and is granted eight weeks' time to file reply.
Till further orders, petitioners are permitted to work as PGT's and shall also be entitled to the salary of the post of PGT.
-
The matter thereafter came up for consideration on 09.04.2015 and the Court passed the following orders:-
Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record copy of letter dated 12.3.2015. This letter is in derogation of the directions issued by this Court on 18.2.2015. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Additional Advocate General prays for and is granted a week's time to seek instructions. List next week.
In the meantime, it shall be open to the respondent-State to redress the grievances of the petitioner by granting him the pay scale of post graduate teacher.
-
Subsequently, when the matter came up for consideration on 23.04.2015, this Court proceeded to draw contempt proceedings against the respondents by passing the following orders:-
The order dated 18.2.2015 has not been complied with by the respondents. The learned Additional Advocate General was permitted to seek instructions on 9.4.2015 and 22.4.2015. The order dated 18.2.2015 ought to have been complied with, more particularly, when till date no reply has been filed.
In view of above, registry is directed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial