(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) On 16.4.2012, we had noticed that our notice dated 5.3.2012 making it returnable on 2.4.2012 was duly served. Despite which, on behalf of neither the respondents anybody appeared. We therefore, adjourned the petition to 30.4.2012 making following observations :
"Under the circumstances, the petition is adjourned to 30th April 2012. By the said date, we expect that the respondents shall carry out the direction for reinstatement of the workman unless the same has been stayed by any higher court, failing which they shall remain personally present before the Court to answer the charges of contempt as also why despite service of notice they failed to appear before the Court."
Today learned AGP Shri Rahul Dave appeared for the respondents and placed on record an order dated 27.4.2012 reinstating the applicant in service, however, subject to outcome of Letters Patent Appeal that the Government may file against the decision of Learned Single Judge. Significantly, in such order, the applicant is required to give an undertaking that under the order of reinstatement he will not be entitled to any benefits of permanency and further that such reinstatement shall be subject to outcome of Letters Patent Appeal that the Government may file. Only upon filing of such an undertaking, he would be reinstated.
We are perturbed by the nonappearance of the respondents on previous occasion despite due service of the notice of the Court. Today also no reply has been filed, no explanation has been rendered as to why despite service of notice of contempt proceedings, the respondents who happen to be responsible Government Officers chose not to defend themselves. We also notice that reinstatement order contains clause of undertaking to be given by the applicant which is wholly unnecessary.
Under the circumstances, S.O. to 7.5.2012, on which date both the respondents shall remain personally present. They shall also file an affidavit explaining why previously they had not responded to Court's contempt notice. They shall also indicate why no cost should be imposed on them. Respondents shall reinstate the applicants without insisting on his undertaking as provided in order dated 27.4.2012.
(Akil Kureshi,J.) (C.L.
Soni,J.) (raghu) Top