The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite party for wilful disobedience of the judgement and order dated 09.06.2020 passed in Writ A No.4130 of 2020. The order is reproduced hereinbelow :-
"It is the case of the petitioner that he had been working with the respondent no.3 since July, 2001 on the post of Computer Operator. When the rules namely "Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or On Contract In Government Departments on Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (Outside the Purview of The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016" were notified, the petitioner applied for regularization and when his application was rejected on 3.12.2019, he filed a writ petition being Writ-A No.817 of 2020 wherein the following order was passed :
" The petitioner is a Computer Operator in the Office of the Chief Conservator of Forest engaged on contract basis since, 2000. He claims regularization but the claim has been rejected vide order dated 03.12.2019.
The petitioner submits that he is entitled to regularization having worked for 20 years by now, in the establishment of the Chief Conservator of Forest. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that he has not worked against any sanctioned post but worked under projects or against posts relating to schemes.
Let a counter affidavit be filed by Sri J.S. Bundela, learned Standing Counsel within a period of four weeks.
List for admission on 17.02.2020 along with a report regarding status of pleadings.
Order on Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 1 of 2020 Issue notice returnable on 17.02.2020."
After the aforesaid order was passed in the writ petition and the petitioner was awaiting the decision therein, another order has been passed on 27.2.2020 by which the petitioner's services have been terminated. This order has been challenged in this writ petition.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order smacks of malice. Regularisation was refused saying that the petitioner had never worked either in Group 'C' or Group 'D' but now the order has been passed simply on the basis of the fact that he was not found suitable. The meant, learned counsel submits, that the petitioner had worked. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there was work available in the department and, therefore, the impugned order could not have been passed.
Matter requires consideration.
Connect this petition with Writ-A No.817 of 2020 and list on the date fixed.
Learned Standing Counsel may file counter affidavit within a period of three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the order dated 27.2.2020 shall remain in abeyance. "
It is informed by Sri K. R. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that in the pending writ petition stay vacation application along-with counter affidavit has already been filed on 22.10.2020.
In the circumstances, unless and until submission raised in the application seeking vacation is adequately addressed and rejected no case for initiation of contempt proceedings is made out.
In the circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to file rejoinder affidavit in the pending writ petition within two weeks from today and also file an urgent listing application before the writ Court. If the rejoinder affidavit as well as listing application is filed within two weeks, the Writ Court is requested to consider and decide, at least the said vacation application filed by the opposite party in the writ petition, expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months.
In view of the same, present petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.8.2021 Pramod Tripathi