Jammu, Oct 10: In CPSW no. 217/2012 CM nos. 3307/2023, 4843/2023, 7270/2021, 2246/2021 [1/2019] 1722/2023, 4190/2019 & 6069/2023 titled Mohan Lal V/s Rakesh Gupta and ors. after hearing HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDERED as:-
1. Respondent 4 is present in person. However, respondent 1 is not present in compliance to order dated 18.09.2023.
2. Perusal of the record of the instant contempt petition would reveal that the petitioner herein earned a judgment in his favour in the year 2012 passed in SWP No. 1475/2010 whereunder the respondents (in the instant contempt petition the officers of the Forest Department) came to be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization retrospectively.
3. Perusal of the record suggests that the judgment (supra) came to be upheld by the Division Bench as also the Apex Court after being thrown challenge to by the respondents, yet the respondents did not regularize the services of the petitioner retrospectively resulting into institution of the instant contempt petition in the year 2012 itself.
4. Perusal of the record would also reveal that the respondent 2 in the contempt petition being Principal Chief Conservator of Forest had filed a compliance report in the instant contempt petition stating therein that the Finance Department vide U.O dated 12.09.2023 accorded concurrence for granting of retrospective effect to the regularization of services of the petitioner and consequently referred the matter to the General Administrative Department for approval of the competent authority.
5. Perusal of the record would further tend to show that the respondent/contemnor 1 being Principal Secretary to Government, Forest Department on account of his absence before the Court came to be directed on 18.09.2023 to remain present before the Court after the Court noticed that the judgment has not been complied with, however, respondent/ contemnor 1 had filed an application for seeking his exemption from personal appearance which exemption came to be granted on the said date i.e., 18.09.2023 providing two weeks further time to the respondents/contemnors for filing compliance report qua grant of retrospective effect to the regularization of services of the petitioner failing which respondents/contemnors 1 and 4 had to remain present before the Court today.
6. As noticed above, respondent 4 is present in person yet the respondent 1 has chosen not to appear and has instead again filed an application for seeking exemption from personal appearance on the same and similar grounds on which the exemption from personal appearance was sought by him earlier on 18.09.2023.
7. Record of the case also demonstrates that the respondent/ contemnor 1 has not filed any compliance report despite the fact it has been the respondent/contemnor 1 alone who, in terms of the judgment passed by this Court whereunder the instant contempt petition has arisen, had to comply the same notwithstanding his stand submitted earlier that the matter stands referred to the General Administrative Department for obtaining approval of the competent authority.
8. The fact remains that the judgment passed by this court on 17.04.2012 has remained unimplemented till date by the respondents/contemnors, in particular, by respondent/ contemnor 1 which, prima facie, constitutes contempt of court committed by the respondent/contemnor 1 and warrants as such initiation of contempt proceedings against respondent 1. However, before framing of formal rule against the respondent/contemnor 1 for observing the series of orders passed by this court in the instant contempt petition in breach inasmuch as not appearing before the court in compliance to order dated 18.09.2023, the Court is compelled to secure the presence of respondent/contemnor 1 through issuance of bailable warrants to be executed through Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu/Srinagar.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the application filed by the respondent/contemnor 1 seeking exemption from personal appearance is not acceptable and is accordingly rejected.
10. It is made clear that the issuance of bailable warrants for securing the presence of respondent/contemnor 1 shall not stand in the way of the respondents/contemnors in reporting compliance of the judgment passed by this Court on 17.04.2012 by or before the next date of hearing.
11. List the matter for further consideration on 16.10.2023.
12. The personal appearance of the respondent 4 is dispensed with for the time being.
|