COPC Nos. 753, 623 and 783 of 2015. Case: Uma Dutt and Ors. Vs Srikant Baldi and Ors.. Himachal Pradesh High Court
| Case Number | COPC Nos. 753, 623 and 783 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: A.K. Gupta, 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 | Contempt of Court |
| Judgement Date | December 09, 2015 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh High Court |
Judgment:
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
-
Since common question of law and fact arise for consideration, all these petitions were taken together for hearing and disposal. Contempt Petition No. 783 of 2015 is taken as lead case, since the initial directions have been passed in this petition, which were subsequently followed and has given rise to the other two contempt petitions, being Contempt Petition Nos. 753 and 623 of 2015.
-
The question which arises for determination is as to whether the respondents by abolishing the work-charged establishments for Class-III employees on 19.6.2001 and Class-IV on 12.12.2005 in I & PH Department can be said to have violated the orders passed by this Court in Rakesh Kumar's case on 28.7.2010 and thereby made themselves liable to be prosecuted and punished under the Contempt of Courts Act?
-
In order to adjudicate this issue, it would be relevant to note that a scheme of regularization as framed by the State, with certain modification was duly approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P. and others 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316 and in terms thereof directions have been issued to the government to grant work-charged status w.e.f. 1.1.1994 to the daily waged workmen, who had completed 10 years service up to 31.12.1993 and those who had yet not completed the said span of service be granted the work-charged status from the dates when they completed the said period and it was further directed that thereafter their services be regularized subject to availability of vacancies.
-
The State Government later on reduced the period of 10 years to 9 years and thereafter vide notification dated 6.5.2000, this period was further curtailed to 8 years. Meaning thereby that the daily waged workmen on completion of 8 years of service were entitled for being conferred with the work-charges status. This policy came up for consideration in CWP No. 2735 of 2008 in case titled as Rakesh Kumar & others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and this Court held the petitioner Rakesh Kumar and other to be entitled to the conferment of work-charged status.
-
The non-compliance of the directions has given rise to Contempt Petition No. 783, whereas the other two Contempt Petitions are the fall out of the directions passed in Rakesh Kumar's case.
-
Consequent upon the orders having been passed in Rakesh Kumar's case (supra), a number of workmen approached this Court for conferment of similar status and were duly granted the same. This lead to filing of Special Leave Petition in Rakesh Kumar's case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, the same was dismissed on 15.1.2015.
-
The petitioners have preferred these contempt petitions on the ground that instead of complying with the directions dated 28.7.2010, the respondents have now manufactured a new story in order to defeat the legitimate claim of the petitioners by claiming that the work charge status stands abolished in the year 2001, which stand is contrary to the judgment passed by this Court. It is further averred that the respondents could not have abolished the work charge status without the leave of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
-
The respondents have filed their reply, wherein they at the outset have tendered their unqualified and unconditional apology. On merits, it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial