Page 1

1

NON REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No. 421 of 2014  In

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4831 OF 2014

GAURI SHANKAR PD. RAI                 ………PETITIONER Vs.

SAJAL CHAKROBORTY, CHIEF SECRETARY,  GOVT.OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.             ……RESPONDENTS

                    WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.428/2014 in C.A. No.4815/2014 CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.431/2014 in C.A. No.4823/2014 CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.427/2014 in C.A. No.4836/2014 CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.424/2014 in C.A. No.4824/2014 CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.432/2014 in C.A. No.4828/2014 CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.423/2014 in C.A. No.4822/2014 CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.425/2014 in C.A. No.4821/2014 CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.433/2014 in C.A. No.4820/2014 CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.426/2014 in C.A. No.4817/2014 CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.430/2014 in C.A. No.4819/2014 CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.422/2014 in C.A. No.4832/2014

Page 2

2

CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.429/2014 in C.A. No.4830/2014 CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.502/2014 in C.A. No.4829/2014 CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.501/2014 in C.A. No.4818/2014 CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.503/2014 in C.A. No.4812/2014 CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.350/2014 in C.A. No.4809/2014 CONTEMPT PETITION(C)No.547/2014 in C.A. No.4810/2014

O R D E R

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.         The above said group of contempt petitions are  

filed  by  the  complainant-petitioners  requesting  this  

Court to initiate the contempt proceedings against the  

respondents  for  their  alleged  disobedience  in  not  

complying with the direction issued by this Court in the  

judgment dated 23.04.2014 passed in Civil Appeal No.4809  

of 2014 along with other batch of Civil Appeals, the  

operative  portion  of  the  order  passed  in  the  above  

Appeals reads thus:    

“…We accordingly direct the appellants to  implement the orders of the Division Bench  of the High Court thereby continuing the  respondents  in  their  services  and  extend  all benefits as have been granted by it in

Page 3

3

the impugned judgment.”

2.  Contempt Petition No. 350 of 2014 in C.A. No. 4809  

of 2014 was first taken up on 11.8.2014, when this Court  

ordered the issuance of notice.  Subsequently, the other  

connected contempt petitions were also listed along with  

the main contempt petition No.421 of 2014 in C.A. No.  

4831  of  2014.  The  respondents  appeared  through  their  

counsel who sought time to comply with the order and  

filed their counter affidavit.  

3. Vide  letter  No.  R.C.  D-01-CC-12/2011/7030(S), the  Government of Jharkhand, Road Construction Department,  

issued a Notification dated 15.09.2014 to one of the  

complainants, the relevant portion of which reads thus:  

“In compliance of the order dated 23.04.2014 of  the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.  4809 of 2014 @ SLP (C)No. 266 of 2012, State of  Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Kamal Prasad & Ors., the  cabinet’s  sanction  has  been  obtained  in  the  meeting dated 11.09.2014 and   vide departmental  resolution  No.  6977  (S)  WE,  dated  15.09.2014,  services  of  Shri  Paras  Kumar  as  Assistant  Engineer on ad-hoc basis, are hereby regularised  from his date of joining i.e. 27.06.1987.   

By order of Governor of Jharkhand  Sd/-  

Principal Secretary to the Government 15.09.2014

     Similar notifications were also issued to all the  

other complainants.

Page 4

4

4.  The complainants, on being aggrieved by the partial  

compliance of the judgment and order of this Court dated  

23.4.2014,  have  filed  these  contempt  petitions  and  

produced the Notifications sent by the respondents along  

with the affidavits. Mr. J.P. Cama, the learned senior  

counsel on behalf of the complainants, has submitted that  

the respondents have not fully complied with the judgment  

and order of this Court dated 23.04.2014 and therefore,  

they have wilfully disobeyed the order, which warrants  

further proceedings against them. We have heard him as  

well as Mr.P.P. Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing  

on behalf of the respondents.   

5. The  learned  senior  counsel  on  behalf  of  the  

complainants has invited our attention to the averments  

made  in  the  writ  petitions  filed  by  the  complainants  

before the High Court of Jharkhand along with the prayer  

made by them under clause ‘C’ of the writ petition No.  

2087 of 2010, wherein the complainants have prayed before  

the High Court for the regularisation of their services  

on the said posts in terms with the conscious policy  

decision  taken  by  the  Notification  No.  10113(s)  dated  

11.09.2009 by the Cadre Controlling State of Bihar. The  

contents of the same read thus:

Page 5

5

“(C) Further  for  direction  upon  the  respondents to treat the petitioners equally to  that of similarly situated 120 persons appointed  along  with  the  petitioners  who  fortuously  remained working in the territory of successor  State of Bihar w.e.f. 15.11.2000 and are still  working without any disturbance and accordingly  to consider the petitioners for regularization  along  with  them  in  terms  with  the  conscious  policy  decision  taken  vide  notification  no.  10113  (s)  dated  11.09.2009  by  the  Cadre  Controlling  State  of  Bihar  and  in  pursuance  thereof, the petitioners have also applied for  the same and which is in active considerations.”

6. He  has  further  placed  strong  reliance  upon  the  

judgment and order of the learned single Judge as well as  

the Division Bench of the High Court in support of his  

contention that the regularisation of the services of the  

complainants was sought even in relation to the posts of  

Junior Engineers and averments have been made to that  

effect in the writ petitions. He has further adverted to  

the Division Bench judgment of the High Court wherein it  

is stated that the complainants have rendered 30 years of  service  both  in  the  State  Government  of  Bihar  and  

Jharkhand. The learned senior counsel has placed reliance  

upon  certain  paragraphs  from  the  aforesaid  judgment,  

which read thus:

“25……………These persons continued in service for  almost 30 years by the State Government (Bihar  and Jharkhand both) not under any stay order  passed by any Court and these employees, after  30 years of their service how can be rendered

Page 6

6

jobless when not only their life but life of  their entire family is dependent upon this job.  It  is  submitted  that  these  employees  should  compete with other eligible persons and may get  the job and in some of the cases Courts directed  and the State Governments relaxed the age.”

x x x x x x

29…………At  the  cost  of  the  repetition  we  may  mention  here  that  the  writ  petitioners'  eligibility at the time of appointment is not in  question  nor  the  conduct  of  these  writ  petitioners  was  questioned  for  more  than  25  years  by  the  State  Government  then  simply  because that there is some indication in the  order that competent authorities may pass any  order in relation to the services of the writ  petitioners, the State Government proceeded to  issue  show-cause  notice  and  then  passed  the  order of  termination  of  services  of  these  employees, which cannot be justified.

30.  The  contention  of  the  learned  Advocate  General  that  the  show-cause  notice  is  not  without jurisdiction or it is not passed by the  authority  having  no  power  are  absolutely  misplaced arguments in as much as that the State  wanted to take a decision to dispense with the  services of the writ petitioners then the State  should have applied its mind and should have  looked  into  all  aspects  including  why  their  services are sought to be terminated/dispensed  with after 30 years of their services from the  time of their appointment on the post of Junior  Engineers  and  why  their  services  cannot  be  regularized  and  who  has  created  this  irrevertible situation?”  

Page 7

7

7. He has further contended that with regard to certain  

factual and legal aspects urged, the Division Bench of  

the High Court at para 33 of its judgment has passed the  

following order:    

“33. In view of the reasons mentioned above, the  LPA  is  allowed  and  impugned  order  dated  25.07.2011  is  set  aside.  Interlocutory  Application  No.  3223/2011  is  allowed  and  the  order of termination of services of the writ  petitioners  and  the  show-cause  notice  are  quashed and the petitioners shall be entitled to  all the consequential benefits also.”

8.  The  same  was  sought  to  be  justified  by  the  

complainants’ senior counsel in the Civil Appeal No.4809  

of 2014, which relevant aspects have been referred to in  

the judgment dated 23.04.2014 passed by this Court at  

paras 4 and 6, which read thus:.  

“4.  The  respondent-employees  (the  writ  petitioners  before  the  High  Court),  were  initially  appointed  in  the  year  1981  in  the  posts  of  Junior  Engineers  in  the  Rural  Development Department in the erstwhile State of  Bihar in respect of which the recommendation of  the Bihar Public Service Commission (for short  “the BPSC”) was not required. It is the case of  the  respondent  employees  that  they  have  continuously  discharged  their  duties  in  the  above  posts  honestly  and  diligently  to  the  satisfaction  of  their  employer.  They  were  subsequently appointed on ad-hoc temporary basis  as Assistant Engineers in the pay-scales of Rs.  1000-50-1700/-  P.Ro-10-1820/-,  with  certain  conditions on the basis of recommendation made  by the BPSC against temporary posts from the  date  of  notification.  Their  services  as  Assistant  Engineers  on  ad-hoc  basis  were

Page 8

8

entrusted  to  work  in  the  Road  Construction  Department  where  they  were  required  to  contribute  their  work  within  the  stipulated  period. The relevant condition No. 2 in the said  notification  No.  Work/G/1-402/87,248/(S)  Patna  dated 27.6.1987 is extracted hereunder:-  

  “1. XXX XXX XXX           2. This ad-hoc appointment shall be   

      dependent on approval of Bihar Public           Service Commission.      3. XXX XXX XXX ……”  

     It is their further case that they have  been working in the said posts for more than 29  years  from  the  date  of  first  appointment  as  Junior  Engineers  and  23  years  from  the  appointment in the posts of Assistant Engineers  on  ad-hoc  basis.  Neither  the  BPSC  nor  Bihar  State Government nor Jharkhand State Government  had intention to dispense with the services of  these employees. Therefore, they did not take  steps  to  dispense  with  their  services  from  their posts. The employees approached the High  Court  when  they  were  issued  the  show  cause  notices dated 20.4.2010 by the appellant No.3.  After  taking  substantial  work  from  the  respondent-employees they have been harassed by  issuing show cause notices asking them to show  cause as to why their services should not be  terminated on the ground of their appointment  to  the  posts  as  illegal/invalid.  Their  appointments  were,  however,  not  held  to  be  invalid either by the orders of the High Court  or Supreme Court in spite of the fact that 199  posts  filled  up  by  advertisement  No.128/1996  issued by the BPSC dated 2.9.1996 as the same  would not affect the respondent-employees who  otherwise have been in continuous service for  more than 23 years in the substantial posts of  Road Construction Department and not of Rural  Engineering/Rural Works Department. Therefore,  it  was  pleaded  by  them  that  the  impugned  notices issued to them was an empty formality  with preconceived decision and the same is also  not only discriminatory but also suffers from

Page 9

9

legal  mala  fides,  arbitrariness,  unreasonableness and is in utter transgression  of the interim order dated 22.3.2010 passed in  W.P.  (S)  No.  1001  of  2010  amounting  to  overreaching the majesty of the High Court. 6.  Further,  direction  was  sought  by  the  respondent employees from the High Court in the  Writ  Petitions  to  treat  them  equally  at  par  with similarly situated 120 persons appointed  along  with  them  who  fortuitously  remained  working in the territory of successor State of  Bihar  namely,  after  the  Jharkhand  State  was  formed  w.e.f.  15.11.2000  without  any  disturbance  and  consider  their  claim  for  regularization  along with  them in  terms with  the conscious Policy decision taken by it vide  notification No. 10113(s) dated 11.09.2009 by  the  Cadre  Controlling  State  of  Bihar  and  in  pursuance thereof the respondent-employees have  also  applied  for  the  same  and  which  is  in  active consideration of the State of Jharkhand  and further they sought for issuance of a writ  of prohibition restraining the appellants from  termination of their services from their posts  in pursuance of the impugned show cause notices  as they had seriously apprehended in the light  of  pre-decisive  and  prejudicial  findings  and  reasons recorded in the impugned notices in the  garb of order dated 22.3.2010 passed in W.P.(S)  No. 1001 of 2010, that their services might be  terminated. However, the fact remains that they  are  discharging their  regular service  to the  appellants (although their posts are termed as  ad-hoc in nomenclature) for more than 29 years  from  the  initial  appointment  as  Junior  Engineers since the year 1981 after following  due procedure of Advertisement etc. and their  services  have  been  upgraded  to  the  posts  of  Assistant Engineer again on temporary basis in  1987  pursuant  to  Cabinet  decision  of  the  erstwhile  State of  Bihar Government  with the  permission  of  BPSC  who  had  recognized  their  qualification  of  degree  and  experience.  Therefore,  their appointment  to the  posts is  legal and valid from their date of inception of

Page 10

10

their original appointment as Junior Engineers  in  the  erstwhile  State  Government  of  Bihar  stating  that  the  appellants  have  been  discharging  their  regular  services  in  the  respondent State although they  treated them as  ad hoc regular service in the respondent state  their  posts  are  termed  as  ad  hoc  in  nomenclature for more than 29 years from the  initial appointment as Junior Engineers since  the year 1981 and after following the procedure  of advertisement etc. and their services have  been  upgraded  to  the  posts  of  Assistant  Engineers (Civil) again on temporary basis in  1987 pursuant to the Cabinet decision of the  erstwhile  Bihar  Government  the  Bihar  Public  Service  Commission  (BPSC)  which  recognised  their qualification of their experience………”   

9. After noting the aforesaid relevant facts, as has  

been urged in the writ petition proceedings and civil  

appeals  before  this  Court,  this  Court  has  passed  the  

judgment  and  order  dated  23.04.2014,  the  operative  

portion of which is extracted above, in which the relief  

as prayed by the complainants was granted accordingly by  

this Court.

10.   Therefore,  the  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  

complainants  has  submitted  that  the  purport  of  the  

judgments and orders of the High Court and this Court are  

that the complainants are entitled for regularisation in  

their posts from 1981, i.e. from the date they have been  

appointed as Junior Engineers in the Department of the  

State Government of Jharkhand and the said posts of the

Page 11

11

complainants have been upgraded to Assistant Engineers by  

giving them promotion, pursuant to the Cabinet decision.  

11.   Therefore, he has prayed that they are entitled for  

regularisation in their posts from 1981, i.e. from the  

year they were initially appointed to the said posts and  

not  from  1987  as  has  been  notified  to  them  by  the  

respondents in the above mentioned Notification as the  same does not amount to full compliance of this Court’s  

direction issued in the judgment and order as has been  

submitted  by  the  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  

complainants.  Therefore, he has urged that there has not  been  full  compliance  of  the  operative  portion  of  the  

judgment and order of this Court.

12.   On the other hand, Mr. P.P. Rao, the learned senior  

counsel for the respondents has sought to justify the  

compliance affidavit and the Notifications produced along  

with the affidavit by contending that the direction given  

by the High Court and this Court in the operative portion  

of the orders is that regularisation of the complainants’  

services in the posts of Assistant Engineers must be done  

by the respondents and the same has been complied with by  

them. He has further contended that there is neither any  

specific prayer nor any direction in the judgment of the

Page 12

12

single Judge or the Division Bench of the High Court  

directing the respondents to regularise their services to  

the posts of Junior Engineers from the year 1981. In the  

absence of the same, it cannot be said that there is a  

wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents on  

which  these  contempt  proceedings  could  be  initiated  

against them. In support of this contention he has placed  

strong reliance upon the judgments of this Court, wherein  

this  Court  has  laid  down  the  law  that  the  contempt  

proceedings  can  be  maintained  and  proceedings  can  be  

initiated  against  the  respondents  by  the  complainants  

only when there is a wilful disobedience of the judgement  

and  order  by  them.  In  support  of  the  above  legal  

submissions he has placed reliance upon the decision of  

this Court in the case of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra  

Kazhagam vs. L.K. Tripathi and Ors.1, wherein this Court  

has held thus:

“64. In  Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. v.  State  of Bihar and Ors. : (1999) 7 SC 569, the Court  outlined the object of its contempt jurisdiction  in the following words:

“9.  For  holding  the  respondents  to  have  committed contempt, civil contempt at that,  it  has  to  be  shown  that  there  has  been  

1  (2009) 5 SCC 417

Page 13

13

wilful  disobedience  of  the  judgment  or  order  of  the  court.  Power  to  punish  for  contempt is to be resorted to when there is  clear violation of the court's order. Since  notice  of  contempt  and  punishment  for  contempt  is  of  far-reaching  consequence,  these powers should be invoked only when a  clear  case  of  wilful  disobedience  of  the  court's  order  has  been  made  out.  Whether  disobedience is wilful in a particular case  depends on the facts and circumstances of  that  case.  Judicial  orders  are  to  be  properly understood and complied with. Even  negligence and carelessness can amount to  disobedience  particularly  when  the  attention  of  the  person  is  drawn  to  the  court's  orders  and  its  implications.  Disobedience of the court's order strikes  at  the  very  root  of  the  rule  of  law  on  which  our  system  of  governance  is  based.  Power to punish for contempt is necessary  for  the  maintenance  of  effective  legal  system.  It  is  exercised  to  prevent  perversion of the course of justice.

x                 x               x

11.  No  person  can  defy  the  court's  order. Wilful  would  exclude  casual  accidental,  bona  fide  or  unintentional  acts or genuine inability to comply with  the terms of the order. A petitioner who  complains breach of the court's order must  allege  deliberate  or  contumacious  disobedience of the court's order.””

13.   In the present cases, the regularisation of the  

services  of  the  complainants  has  been  made  from  the  

respective dates i.e, from the date on which they were

Page 14

14

appointed to the post of Assistant Engineers from the  

posts Junior Engineers, in the absence of any specific  

plea or any direction given in the impugned order by both  

the Courts to the respondents to regularise the services  

of the complainants w.e.f. 1981 in the posts of junior  

Engineers. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a  

wilful disobedience of the judgment and order on the part  

of the respondents and that they have committed contempt  

of this Court. Therefore, the learned senior counsel for  

the respondents has requested this Court to drop the said  

proceedings.

14.    He further contends that if they are aggrieved by  

the non-grant of the regularisation of the services of  

the complainants to the said posts w.e.f. 1981, they are  

required  to  initiate  appropriate  proceedings  before  a  

competent Court of law and get such directions issued to  

the respondents and therefore he has prayed to drop the  

proceedings by accepting the compliance affidavit.   

15.   We have heard the learned senior counsel on behalf  

of  both  the  parties.  With  reference  to  the  aforesaid  

rival  legal  contentions  urged  and  after  careful  

consideration of the averments made along with the prayer  

made  in  the  writ  petitions  and  on  a  perusal  of  the

Page 15

15

judgments and orders of both the High Court and this  

Court, we pass the following order:

     Our attention has been rightly invited by the  

learned  senior  counsel  for  the  complainants,  Mr.J.P.  

Cama, to the pleadings and the prayer at clause ‘C’ of  

the writ petition before the High Court as well as the  

operative portion of the orders passed by the Division  

Bench of the High Court dated 8.11.2011 and this Court  

dated 23.04.2014. We have adverted to certain facts at  

paras 4 and 6 of the judgment dated 23.04.2014 of this  

Court  with  reference  to  the  claim  of  the  contempt  

petitioners.  Though  the  complainants  were  initially  

appointed  to  the  services  in  the  erstwhile  State  of  

Bihar,  subsequently  on  the  bifurcation  of  Bihar  and  

Jharkhand States, the services of these complainants have  

been transferred to the State of Jharkhand and they have  

been  functioning  as  such  in  the  posts  of  Assistant  

Engineers.  Therefore,  the  contention  of  the  learned  

senior  counsel,  Mr.  P.P.  Rao,  that  the  notification  

issued by the erstwhile Bihar State cannot be applied to  

the complainants who have been transferred and fall under  

the  jurisdiction  of  the  Jharkhand  State  is  wholly  

untenable  in  law  for  the  reason  that  prior  to  their

Page 16

16

appointment to the posts of Assistant Engineers in the  

State  of  Jharkhand,  they  have  been  discharging  their  

duties similar to that of permanent Junior Engineers from  

the  year  1981  in  the  erstwhile  State  of  Bihar  and  

therefore,  treating  their  services  as  ad  hoc,  after  

promoting them to the said posts of Assistant Engineers,  

without  giving  them  pay  scale  payable  to  the  said  

permanent posts in the State of Jharkhand is erroneous  

and contrary to law. Therefore, the contention urged in  

this regard by Mr. P.P. Rao cannot be accepted by us.  

16.   The  learned  senior  counsel  on  behalf  of  the  

respondents  has  contended  that  there  are  neither  any  

pleadings nor any specific prayer in the writ petitions  

filed  by  the  complainants  nor  any  specific  directions  

were given in the judgments and orders of both the High  

Court  as  well  as  this  Court  to  the  respondents  to  

regularize the services of the complainants with effect  

from 1981. The said contention cannot be accepted by this  

Court for the reason that it is contrary to the record  

and therefore, the same is wholly untenable in law. The  

purport of the judgments and orders of the High Court as  

well  as  this  Court  makes  it  amply  clear  that  the  

respondents  shall  regularize  the  services  of  the

Page 17

17

complainants with effect from 1981 in the posts of Junior  

Engineers also.

17.   However,  in  our  considered  view,  the  reliance  

placed upon the judgments and orders of the High Court as  

well  as  this  Court  do  support  the  contention  of  the  

complainants  for  the  reason  that  there  is  wilful  

disobedience on the part of the respondents as they have  

partially fulfilled the direction given by this Court as  

well as the High Court with regard to the regularization  

of the services of the complainants from the year 1987.  

18.   However,  further  direction is  issued  to  the  respondents  to  regularise  the  services  of  the  

complainants from the date of their initial appointment  

as  Junior  Engineers  i.e.  from  the  year  1981.  Not  

complying with the directions issued by this Court from  

the above mentioned year would amount to deprivation of  

the legitimate rights of the complainants as determined  

by the High Court and this Court in the judgments and  

orders.   

19.    After taking the entire litigation, pleadings,  

documents on record and the rival legal contentions urged  

on behalf of the parties into consideration, we direct  

the respondents to comply with the above said direction

Page 18

18

after properly understanding the purport of the judgments  

and orders of the High Court as well as this Court.  

20.    For  the  aforesaid  reasons,  we  give  one  more  

opportunity  to  the  respondents  to  comply  with  the  

judgments and orders in  toto  for the regularization of  

the services of the complainants from the year 1981.  The  

same cannot be treated as a fresh direction issued in the  

contempt  petitions  to  the  respondents  as  we  have  

indicated the purport of the operative portion of the  

judgments and orders of the High Court as well as this  

Court. The respondents shall comply with the order as  

indicated above and submit their compliance report within  

four weeks from today.  

…………………………………………………………J.                 [V. GOPALA GOWDA]

                             …………………………………………………………J.       [C. NAGAPPAN]

New Delhi, April 9, 2015

Page 19

19

ITEM NO.1A-For JUDGMENT     COURT NO.11               SECTION XVII                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONMT.PET.(C) No. 421/2014 In C.A. No. 4831/2014   GAURI SHANKAR PD RAI                              Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS SAJAL CHAKROBORTY CHIEF SECRETARY,  GOVT. OF JHARKHAND AND ORS   Respondent(s) WITH CONMT.PET.(C) No. 428/2014 In C.A. No. 4815/2014  CONMT.PET.(C) No. 431/2014 In C.A. No. 4823/2014  CONMT.PET.(C) No. 427/2014 In C.A. No. 4836/2014  CONMT.PET.(C) No. 424/2014 In C.A. No. 4824/2014  CONMT.PET.(C) No. 432/2014 In C.A. No. 4828/2014  CONMT.PET.(C) No. 423/2014 In C.A. No. 4822/2014  CONMT.PET.(C) No. 425/2014 In C.A. No. 4821/2014  CONMT.PET.(C) No. 433/2014 In C.A. No. 4820/2014  CONMT.PET.(C) No. 426/2014 In C.A. No. 4817/2014  CONMT.PET.(C) No. 430/2014 In C.A. No. 4819/2014  CONMT.PET.(C) No. 422/2014 In C.A. No. 4832/2014  CONMT.PET.(C) No. 429/2014 In C.A. No. 4830/2014  CONMT.PET.(C) No. 502/2014 In C.A. No. 4829/2014  CONMT.PET.(C) No. 501/2014 In C.A. No. 4818/2014  CONMT.PET.(C) No. 503/2014 In C.A. No. 4812/2014  CONMT.PET.(C) No. 350/2014 IN C.A. No. 4809/2014  CONMT.PET.(C) No. 547/2014 In C.A. No. 4810/2014 Date : 09/04/2015 These petitions were called on for pronouncement  of JUDGMENT today.

Page 20

20

For Petitioner(s)                      Mr. Mohit Kumar Shah,Adv.                                            Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey,Adv. For Respondent(s)                      Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh,Adv.                      Mr. Jayesh Gaurav, Adv.

Md. Waquas, Adv.

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  V.Gopala  Gowda  pronounced  the  judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr.  Justice C.Nagappan.

We  give  one  more  opportunity  to  the  respondents  to  comply  with  the  judgments  and  orders  in  toto  for  the  regularization of the services of the complainants from the  year 1981.  The same cannot be treated as a fresh direction  issued in the contempt petitions to the respondents as we  have indicated the purport of the operative portion of the  judgments and orders of the High Court as well as this Court.  The  respondents  shall  comply  with  the  order  as  indicated  above and submit their compliance report within four weeks  from today, in terms of the signed Non-Reportable Judgment.  

List the matters after four weeks.         (VINOD KR.JHA)    (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)

COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed Non-Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)