(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. The applicant had moved Special Civil Application No.8785 of 2011. While disposing of the said petition by order dated 14.7.2011, learned Single Judge of this Court passed the following order:-
"In light of this background, learned advocate Mr. Parekh appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that if this Court may direct respondents to consider case of petitioner as per Annexure 'E' order dated 4th October 2006 within some reasonable time, then, he is prepared to withdraw application made before Primary Education Tribunal being Application No.1 of 2007.
Therefore, let petitioner may withdraw Application No.1 of 2007 pending before Primary Education Tribunal and on that condition, it is directed to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider case of petitioner being a teacher in Ashram Shala remained continue in pursuance of order dated 4th October, 2006 and also examine case of petitioner and decide it in accordance with law, rules and regulations within a period of two months from date of receiving copy of present order and communicate decision to petitioner immediately.
In view of above observation and direction, present petition is disposed of by this Court without expressing any opinion on merits.
Direct service is permitted."
2. The applicant, complaining of non-compliance with the above directions issued by the learned Single Judge, has moved this contempt petition. In response of the notice issued, the respondents have appeared through their respective learned advocates. The State and its authorities, respondent Nos.1 and 2, who were required to take certain steps, as directed by the learned Single Judge, have also filed affidavit dated 31.1.2012. Respondent No.3 has not filed any affidavit. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 however submitted that since the order passed by the learned Single Judge contained no direction against respondent No.3, no affidavit on behalf of the said respondent was necessary.
3. Learned counsel Shri Parekh for the applicant submitted that despite the clear direction issued by the learned Single Judge, the State authorities have not examined the request of the applicant nor any final communication in this regard is made to him. In particular, he pointed out that the request of the applicant was not confined to reinstatement in the Ashram Shala run by respondent No.3. He, in fact, had conveyed to the Government authorities that he is willing to work in any other Ashram Shala.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, pointed out that pursuant to and in compliance of order dated 14.7.2011, the authorities had taken various steps. In fact, respondent No.3 was asked to reinstate the applicant. However, the school itself is closed down and is likely to resume only in the academic year beginning in 2012.
5. Learned counsel Shri Majmudar appearing for respondent No.3 submitted that learned Single Judge had passed order dated 14.7.2011 without any notice to respondent No.3. Certain directions contained in the said order would prejudicially affect the respondent No.3 and therefore, the said respondent has filed Letters Patent Appeal against the said order, in which the Court has already issued notice to the original petitioner.
6. Be that as it may, at this stage, we are concerned with the compliance of the order of learned Single Judge at the hands of respondent Nos.1 and 2. From the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of such respondents, we notice that steps were taken to comply the directions of the learned Single Judge. However, no formal order has been passed either accepting or rejecting, in part or full, the request of the applicant. The learned Assistant Government Pleader stated that proper communication shall be made to the applicant in this regard expeditiously and preferably within two weeks from today. With this assurance, we close the contempt proceedings. It is clarified that this order will not prejudice either respondent No.3 or the applicant in the pending Letters Patent Appeal.
7. The application is disposed of accordingly. Notice discharged.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (C.L.
SONI, J.) omkar Top