Court No. - 10 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 579 of 2010 Petitioner :- Smt. Sudha Tripathi Respondent :- Arvind Singh Dev, Principal Secretary, Medical Education Petitioner Counsel :- Miss Rashmi Tripathi Respondent Counsel :- S.C. Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J.
Sri K. R. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, has filed an affidavit of
compliance on behalf of the opposite party. Along with an affidavit is
annexed an order dated 22nd July, 2010 whereby after considering the
observations made in the order dated 14th July, 2010 passed in the present
Contempt proceedings, the opposite party referred the matter to the law
department for opinion. The Law Department has opined that the Special
Leave Petition may be filed before the Apex Court against the order dated
24th August, 2009 passed by the Division Bench with the condition that the
compliance of the judgment and order 24th August 2009 is made. As such in
that view of the matter the meeting of the Regularisation Committee was
called and the said committee has resolved that the proceedings for
regularisation of the applicant be carried out subject to the out come of the
Special Leave Petition to be filed by the State. In that view of the matter, it
has been provided in para 4 of the said order that the applicant is regularised
with immediate effect subject to the final out come of the Special Leave
Petition to be filed by the State.
In these circumstances, Sri K. R. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, has prayed
that the directions the writ Court having been complied with no further
consideration is required in this contempt application and as such notices may
be discharged and application may be consigned to record. It is further
submitted by Sri K. R. Singh, learned Standing Counsel that as the directions
of the writ Court are complied with, the opposite party is not present in view
of the conditional order passed on 14th July, 2010.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in fact no compliance has
been effected by the opposite party. He has referred to similar cases where
regularisation has been effected from 1992 whereas in the case of the
applicant, she has been regularised with immediate effect i.e. from the date of
the order dated 22nd July, 2010.
Further the Court has noticed that the order dated 24th August, 2009 passed
by the Division Bench was in the knowledge of the opposite party as also the
State from the time it was passed and in any case since January, 2010 when
notices were issued in the Contempt Application. It is further submitted that
opposite party had earlier passed an order on 7th May, 2010 rejecting the case
of the applicant for regularisation apparently on the same ground on which an
earlier order had been passed on 21st April, 2006 which has been held to be
erroneous by the Division Bench in its judgement dated 24th August, 2009. It
was thereafter that a detailed order was passed on 14.07.2010 in the Contempt
application prima facie holding that the opposite party is guilty of wilful
disobedience having passed an order in the teeth of the directions contained in
the judgment dated 24.8.2009. In the order dated 14.07.2010 passed in
contempt proceedings there was no consideration of any fresh material. It had
only referred to and relied upon the judgement of the Division Bench passed
in the writ petition.The order which has been placed on record today and is
alleged to be in compliance of the judgment of the writ Court, is not an order
in letter and spirit of the directions but is only an attempt to mislead the Court.
The opposite party had already gone through the record before passing the
order dated 07.05.2010. No legal opinion was sought at that stage. What
inspired the opposite party to seek legal opinion now has not been placed on
record. Was it an attempt to scuttle the implementation of the judgement of
the writ Court and to get the matter further delayed, or it was just raising an
issue to see that the applicant does not get what she was entitled to under the
judgement of the writ Court.
Every litigant has a right to avail the remedies open to it under law. State of
U.P is the biggest litigant in Uttar Pradesh. It definitely has a right to file
appeal or S.L.P against the decision of the High Court. But at the same time
the State will have to consider as to whether there is any question of law
available to file S L P. For this purpose the opinion is taken from the Law
Department. In the present case the conduct of the Law Department also
appears to be a little unusual and strange. In a matter where the Division
Bench decided the petition on the basis of the material on record and the
concession given on behalf of the State respondent. What material was placed
before it by the concerned department seeking opinion. Further under what
circumstances the regularisation was recommended from immediate effect
and not from the date when the other similarly situate Medical Officers had
been regularised. Further if the Law Department was of the opinion that the
judgement of the writ Court was not sustainable in law and required
reconsideration by the Appellate Court, then why recommend for
implementing the same.
In the circumstances the Court would like to look into the material placed
before the Law Department for its opinion.
Let this matter be listed on 18th August, 2010.
On the said date the opposite party as also the Secretary Law (Legal
Remembrancer) shall remain present before this Court for proceeding further
in the matter. The opposite party as also the Legal Remembrancer shall
produce the relevant record relating to the grant of permission to file Special
Leave Petition.
Order Date :- 26.7.2010
SS