Shaffique, J. Petitioner has approached this Court complaining about non-compliance with the directions issued by this Court in W.A. No. 2005/2010.
2. The writ appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court as per judgment dated 11.4.2014, issuing the following directions:
“18. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ appeal succeeds to the extent that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and condition no. 3 in paragraph 6 of Ext. P1 is liable to be quashed, resultantly directing that the provisional service rendered by the appellants shall be counted for all service benefits, including pension.
19. In the result, this writ appeal is allowed as ordered hereunder:
i. the impugned judgment is set aside.
ii. Condition No. 3 in paragraph 6 of Ext. P1 G.O (MS) No.275/06/H&FWD dated 29.12.2006 is quashed.
iii. It is declared that the provisional service rendered by each of the appellants shall be counted for all service benefits including pension.
iv. No costs.”
3. The contention raised by the petitioner is that despite directions issued to treat the provisional service rendered by the petitioners to be counted for all service benefits, no specific order has been passed by the respondent and therefore the respondent has committed wilful contempt.
4. On a perusal of the judgment and after hearing learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Government Pleader, we are of the view that this is not an instance where wilful contempt has been committed by the respondent. The respondent is the Secretary to Government, Department of Health and Family Welfare. This Court, in the aforesaid judgment, had quashed condition no. 3 in paragraph 6 of Ext. P1 Government Order dated 29.12.2006. Ext. P1 was the Government Order issued by the respondent. When condition no. 6 had been deleted, definitely, the provisional service rendered by the appellant will have to be taken for giving service benefits. The complaint is that no action had been taken by the respondent to fix the pay and salary of the petitioner and the benefit of the judgment had not been extended to the respondent. Apparently, the service benefits have to be fixed by the Department, who is the 2nd respondent in the writ appeal. He is not made as a party to this contempt case. Counsel for the petitioner submits that copy of Annexure III had been sent to the 2nd respondent in the writ appeal as well, but no action had been taken in the matter.
5. What ever that might be, having regard to the fact that the 2nd respondent in the writ appeal is not a party to the contempt petition and that apart particulars regarding the claim of each appellant have not been placed on record, we do not think that this Court can proceed against the respondent. It shall be open for the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent in the writ appeal in accordance with the directions issued by this Court and thereafter if there is no compliance, the petitioner will be at liberty to take appropriate proceedings including moving contempt case.
With the above observation, the contempt case is closed.
Sd/-
Ashok Bhushan, Ag. Chief Justice Tds/ Sd/-
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.