Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5454 of 2019 Applicant :- Dr. Rakesh Kumar Mishra Opposite Party :- Prashant Trivedi, Secretary Ayush, Ayush Anubhag-1, U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Budhwar
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for wilful disobedience of the order dated 26.04.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.6488 of 2019), which for ready reference is quoted as under:-
"Heard Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.
Petitioners claim to be appointed on 28 February 1992 as Medical Doctor/Medical Officer in Ayurvedic/or Unani Medicine on adhoc basis. Pursuant thereof, petitioner alongwith other doctors came to be appointed Medical Officer on adhoc basis by State Government vide order dated 28 February 1992 in the pay-scale at Rs. 2200-4000. It is urged that petitioner continued as an adhoc Doctor since 18 June 1988 until his regularization on 28 February 1992.
By means of the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent, Principal Secretary (Medical Education), Anubhag-2 (Ayurvedic), Government of U.P., Lucknow, to pay pension and post retiral benefits to the petitioner after computing services rendered on adhoc basis that is w.e.f. 18 June 1988. It is further urged that the case of the petitioner, on admitted facts, is covered by the Division Bench decision rendered in Dr. Ravindra Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and others Writ-A No. 22833 of 2018 decided along with other writ petitions. The order dated 23 January 2019 reads thus:
"Heard Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.
The petitioners had approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. However, the petitions were transferred to this Court for decision as petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioners were initially appointed as Medical Officers (Ayurvedic) on contract basis. Subsequently their services were directed to be treated on ad-hoc by separate orders passed sometimes in the year 1992 onwards viz. 28.2.1992. The State Government vide order dated 16.3.2005 directed for regularisation of their services on the post of Medical Officers(Ayurvedic).
The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that once their services on the post of Medical Officers (Ayurvedic) have been regularised under the orders of the State Government, the services rendered by them on ad-hoc basis till the date of their regularisation ought to be added in their regular services for the purposes of grant of terminal benefits.
The above controversy came up for consideration before Division Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.61974 of 2011, Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others. The Court allowed the aforesaid writ petition vide judgment and order dated 1.3.2012 holding that the petitioners therein, which were similarly situated as the petitioners herein, are entitled to pension with effect from the date when they joined the services with the State Government and the State Government will calculate their pension and make payment accordingly, within the specified period.
The aforesaid decision in Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava (supra) was followed by another Division Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.44549 of 2015, Dr. Mayank Shekhar Upadhyay vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 4.1.2017 and similar directions as aforesaid, were issued therein. This order of the Division Bench of this Court was challenged before the Supreme Court by means of Special Leave Petition No.33111 of 2017, State of U.P. and others vs. Dr. Mayank Shekhar Upadhyay and the same was dismissed on 9.3.2018.
In view of the above, the aforesaid decisions in the matter of Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava and Dr. Mayank Shekhar Upadhyay(supra) are final and conclusive.
Thus, following the above decisions, we dispose of this petition holding that the petitioners are entitled to terminal benefits by counting their services from the date of their initial appointment with the State Government and that the respondents shall work out the pension and other dues payable to them accordingly and make the payment within the next two months."
Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute that the case of the petitioner is covered by the said order. He submits that a decision on the representation of the petitioner shall be taken by the first respondent. In regard thereto, without entering into the merit of the case, as well as, rival contentions raised by the respective parties, it is provided that the first respondent, Principal Secretary (Medical Education), Anubhag-2 (Ayurvedic), Government of U.P., Lucknow shall consider and decide the claim/representation of the petitioner, by a reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously, preferably, within three months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order along with the copy of the writ petition.
With the aforementioned observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of."
It is reflected from the record that a certified copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite parties but the opposite parties have wilfully not complied with the order and, thus, have committed civil contempt liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Prima facie a case of contempt has been made out. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is afforded to the opposite parties to comply with the aforesaid order of the Court within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite parties and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within one week from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the self-addressed stamped envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite parties within one week, thereafter and keep a record thereof. The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ Court and intimate the applicant of the order through the self-addressed envelop within a week, thereafter.
With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicant to move a fresh application, if the order is not complied with by the opposite parties within the stipulated time as aforementioned.
Order Date :- 27.8.2019 SP/