In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Cont Case (Civil) No.106 of 2011
Dr. Lal Mani Prasad ......................................Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Jharkhand and others......... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
For the Petitioner : Mr.Sohail Anwar, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. A.K.Mehta, Advocate
3. 23.3.11
. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and leaned counsel
appearing for the respondents.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court while
disposing of the several writ applications, vide order dated 10.1.2011 passed an
order that age of superannuation of the writ petitioner would stand extended to
65 years. Further it was observed that as a consequence whereof the petitioner
who was in service but was made to retire on 30.6.2010 or thereafter on
attaining the age of 62 years would be entitled to the benefit of extended age of
superannuation as a result of which they are to be taken back in service with
continuity and all consequential benefits. Pursuant to that order, the petitioner
on the very next day, i.e. on 11.1.2011 made an application before the
Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi requesting therein to issue a notification in
terms of the order passed by the Court. When nothing was done, the petitioner
again filed an application on 20.1.2011 and on 31.1.2011 before the Registrar,
Ranchi University, Ranchi but the Registrar did not pay any heed to it and
therefore, there was no option left to the petitioner but to move the application
for contempt.
Learned counsel further submits that on being noticed, opposite parties 2
and 3 have filed an affidavit wherein in one of the paragraphs of the affidavit it
has been stated that the University has moved the matter before the State
Government and the University will abide by the direction of the State
Government which statement is sufficient to hold opposite parties 2 and 3 guilty
of the contempt of Court.
As against that, Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the Ranchi
University submits that against the order passed by this Court, the State
Government has preferred L.P.A and therefore, in view of the decision rendered
in a case of Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. & Another vs.
Sachidanand Dass & Another reported in [1995 Supp (4) SCC 465] , this
Court should not proceed with the matter relating to contempt when the L.P.A is
pending for hearing, as according to Hon’ble Supreme Court, both the matters
i.e. L.P.A and the Contempt Case are desirable to be heard simultaneously.
Admittedly, L.P.A has been preferred not either by opposite party no.2 or
opposite party no.3 but by the State government. That L.P.A according to
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is defective and the appellant has
never taken any care to remove the defects so that the same be listed under the
heading for admission. This fact at least indicates that hearing of the L.P.A is
being delayed and the opposite parties 2 and 3 who have never preferred L.P.A
have been taking advantage of that.
Be that as it may, it be recorded that as per the order passed by this
Court, it is opposite party no.2 who is to do needful in the matter of continuance
of the petitioner on the post which he was holding before he was made to retire.
However taking into account the stand taken on behalf of opposite parties 2
and 3.
Let this case be listed after three weeks on 18.4.2011 to facilitate them to
do needful so that necessary decision in compliance of the order of this Court
be taken.
It is made clear that if opposite parties 2 and 3 would fail to comply the
order passed by this Court, this Court will proceed with this matter of contempt.
ND/ ( R.R.Prasad, J.)