1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are two in numbers, alleging that they were working as Casual Labourers/ Beldar/Safai Karmchari in the Archaeological Survey of India at Lucknow for the past seven years for more. Their services were terminated orally without assigning any reason by the respondent.They filed an Original Application No.332/01495 of 2014 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench Lucknow. The said Original Application was dismissed on 03.02.2016. Thereafter petitioners have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 8666 of 2016 ( Satrudhan and others Vs. Union of India and others). This Court by its judgment and order dated 01.08.2016 was pleased to extend the benefit of the order dated 30.03.2015 passed in similar Writ Petition No. 374 (S/B) of 2015. The order passed by this Court on 30.03.2015 has been filed as Annexure no.2 to the contempt petition. This Court has disposed of the writ petition no.374((S/B) of 2015 with the direction to the respondent to consider their further engagement, may be on muster roll prepared by the department in which the petitioners names are on roll and that the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal would not be a hurdle for the respondents to engage the petitioners. The order of the writ court was conditional that such engagement be done only if they proceed to engage further any of the employees on muster roll as per their need and requirement.
2. This Court had directed the respondent to consider the petitioners' engagement in the department without interfereing in the judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on the Original Application No.332/ 01495 of 2014.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners were not engaged regularly they filed this contempt petition in which notices have been issued.
4. The respondent represented by Sri Neerav Chitravanshi has filed affidavit of compliance on 19.01.2018 stating therein that in compliance of order of writ court's order, opposite party/Sri Indu Prakash, Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Lucknow Circle, 9th Floor, Kendriya Bhawan,Aliganj, Lucknow vide his order dated 12.01.2018 directed engagement of the petitioners as casual workers.
5. The petitioners have filed a supplementary affidavit on 05.07.2018 saying that although they were engaged on 12.01.2018 they have been disengaged again by on oral order on 19.03.2018.
6. This Court had asked the respondent to submit their response.The respondent has submitted his response on 04.09.2018 wherein it has been admitted by the respondent that petitioners have been disengaged in March, 2018.Sri Neerav Chitravanshi has pointed out from the contents of the same affidavit dated 04.09.2018 that the petitioners were initially engaged as casual labourer on muster roll and, therefore, they prayer for giving them regularization and continuous working was rejected by Central Administrative Tribunal.In respectful compliance of writ court's order petitioners were re-engaged as casual labourer. However, Directorate in New Delhi vide letter no. 5/Adg/2017/ASI dated 10.08.2017, has provided that all further engagement of casual labourers was to made only through out-sourcing agencies selected by adopting e-tendering process. Tenders were invited, scrutinized and the work order was placed on 29.06.2018 to M/s Pradeep Kumar Shukla for supply of required number of casual labourers at Centrally Protected Monument Residency w.e.f. 02.07.2018. It was laid down in the terms and conditions of the e-tender document that the casual labourer who have already worked with the Archaeological Survey of India shall be given preference for engagement.
7. It has been submitted by Sri Neerav Chitravanshi that in compliance of order dated 10.08.2017 no labourer can now be engaged directly by the respondent, but still instructions were issued to the Agency to provide labourers having experience of working in protected monuments. A letter was sent to the petitioners to come and join the work. However they had not given any response.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder, has submitted that the petitioners live just out side the campus of the Centrally Protected Monuments and it is quite unbelievable that they could not have been served any letter asking them to join the work. The petitioners are low paid labourers,who would certainly have joined had they received information.
9. This Court finds that after the Directorate issued its letter dated 10.08.2017 order passed by this Court on 30.03.2015 in Writ Petition No.374 (SB) of 2015 could not have been complied with, as no fresh engagement is being made directly by the respondent.Labourers are supplied by service provider/contractor. However, the respondent tried to get the petitioners engaged as casual labourer through the Contractor by providing such a clause in e-tendered document.
10. This Court finds that Contractor is not a party in the writ petition nor he was a party in the writ petition filed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.8666(SB) of 2016 (Satrudhan and others Vs. Union of India and other). This Court had not set aside the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.332/01495 of 2014.Out of sympathy for the petitioners the writ court had made certain observations allowing the respondent to reengage such petitioners if they continued to engage employee on muster roll as per their needs and requirement in future.
11.The Judgment and order dated 01.08.2016 had been sufficiently complied with by the respondent. There is no willful disobedience of the order passed by writ court made out from the pleadings on record.
12. The contempt petition stands dismissed . Notices are discharged.
13. No order as to cost.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 dk/