Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 694 of 2014 Applicant :- Tubewell Operator Welfare Association And Another Opposite Party :- Om Prakash Chaubey Executive Engineer And 2 Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- R.B. Tripathi,R.R. Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
On the matter being taken up today, Shri Apurva Hajela, learned Standing Counsel apprised to the Court that the present contempt application has been preferred against the order dated 05.10.2013 passed in Writ Petition no.3483 of 2003 (Tubewell Operator Welfare Association vs. State of U.P. and others) and Writ Petition no.55234 of 2003 (Chandra Bhushan Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others) and against the said order, the State Government has preferred the Special Appeal (D) no.227/2014 (State of U.P. and others vs. Tubewell Operator Welfare Association) and Special Appeal (D) no.226/2014 (State of U.P. and others vs. Chandra Bhushan Singh and others) and the same has been disposed of by judgement and order dated 31.03.2014 with following observations:-
"We do not find any substance in the submission of Shri H.R. Mishra that part time tube well operators are entitled to any benefits of service, which is applicable to employee either temporary or permanent employees appointed on any substantive post prior to the date of their regularisation.
This High Court as well as the Supreme Court has in the judgment in Dukh Haran Singh's case cited as above has clarified the legal position.
The special appeals are consequently disposed of with clarification that all the writ petitioners for whose benefit the writ petition is filed will be entitled to benefits of service including GPF, promotional and selection grade and the pension treating their services with effect from the date they were regularised and not from any date, prior to that."
In view of the above, he submits that the substantial compliance has been ensured in the matter.
Learned counsel for the applicant informed to the Court that at present, he does not have any instruction from the applicants.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that nothing survives in the present contempt application.
Consequently, the Contempt Application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 A. Pandey