ORDER
S.K. Kar, J.
1. This application at the instance of Smt. Thounaojam Romie Devi, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1262 of 2000, was entertained on 3.8.2001 by this court issuing notices to the respondents to show cause as to why action under section 11/12 of the contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Rule 9 of the Gauhati High Court (Contempt of Courts) Rules, 1977 should not be initiated against the respondents. In the meantime names of two more respondents (respondents 5 and 6) were inserted.
2. It appears that in the writ petition aforesaid this court passed an order on 14.9.2000. The operative portion of which goes as follows :
“A prayer has been made in this writ petition that the petitioner may be allowed to hold the post on ad hoc basis till the post is filled up on regular basis through direct recruitment. Since the petitioner has been holding the post on ad hoc basis for about 2 (two) years, she shall be allowed to hold the post till the post is filled up on regular basis by direct recruitment, after the ban on direct recruitment is lifted. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall not claim regularisation of the post she is now holding. It is further directed that the post shall be filed up through direct recruitment as soon as the ban is lifted. If the petitioner possesses the requisite qualifications her case may also be considered along with other eligible candidates.”
3. Notices were issued to the respondents and they have appeared. I have heard Mr. Bimol Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Asok Potsangba, learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. N. Kotiswor Singh, learned Advocate and Mr. K. Jagat Singh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. Respondents 2 and 3 presented their affidavit-in-opposition separately. Mr. Bhorot, respondent No. 2, the Commissioner (DP), has denied the allegations raised in the application for contempt and contended, inter alia, that the writ petitioner was allowed to continue in service by respondents 1 and 4 and there is no question of violation of the order of the court passed on 14.9.2000 in W.P.(C) 1262 of 2000 and that the petition has been filed with mala fide motive to harass the, answering respondent. Respondent No. 3 Mr. V. Chhibber, has stated that the Finance Deptt. has nothing to do with the question of compliance of the order of the court which is the job of the administrative department and contended that he has been wrongly impleaded in the contempt petition, etc.
5. Giving my anxious consideration to the aforesaid submissions made and after going through the contents to the application asking for drawing contempt and affidavit-in-opposition, if find as follows.
6. The application states that after passing the order dated 14.9.2000 by this court the writ petitioner was allowed to continue in her respective post(s) and her ad hoc services were extended by the Director of Commerce and Industries, Manipur for six months w.e.f. 1.10.2000 to 31.3.2001 vide order dated 8.12.2000. That in spite of the extension order her pay and allowances from the month of April, 2001 was not released and thereafter the respondents failed to extend her ad hoc service. That acts of the contemners (as alleged) not extending the ad hoc service and not releasing the monthly salary from March, 2001 till date is gross violation, wilful disobedience and dis-respect of the order of the court amounting to serious contempt of court for which, contemners are liable to be punished. That the petition is filed bona fide and petitioner/applicant has got no other speedy, adequate and efficacious remedy for which this application has been filed to take suo moto cognizance to punish the contemners and pass any other appropriate orders, etc.
7. It has been rightly pointed out to me that the entire question to alleged contempt and idea of taking action by court under the Contempt of Courts Act has been mis-conceived in this case by filing this petition. The operative portion of the order in question (reproduced above) will clearly show that there is no scope to maintain any allegation of contempt against the respondents. The order of the court has simply directed that the petitioner may be allowed to hold the post on ad hoc basis till the post is filled up on regular basis through direct recruitment. There is nothing to show that any order was passed by any body asking her to vacate the post. The order has specifically mentioned as follows:
“It is also made clear that the petitioner shall not claim regularisation of the post she is now holding. It is further directed that the post shall be filled up through direct recruitment as soon as the ban is lifted”.
The order further directed that if the writ petitioner was having requisite qualifications, her case may also be considered along with other eligible candidates.
8. Therefore, thread bare analysis of the operative portion of the order dated 14.9.2000 will show that there is absolutely no cause to invite contempt unless and until we find that there is an allegation that in spite of the order passed by the Court as aforesaid, the petitioner was not allowed, by any definite order passed, to hold the post on ad-hoc basis. This allegation being not there in the application for contempt, I find and hold that this is a clear abuse of the process of the Court and the respondents have been dragged un-necessarily and un-wisely into litigations for no fault of theirs. It cannot be a proposition of law that in each and every case a contempt proceeding is to be initiated mechanically and persons be called upon to answer things in which they played no role or where they had no part to discharge. We should be cautious in drafting petitions for drawing up contempt. There is no gainsaying that a serious thing should be taken seriously but not casually. Peoples’ confidence in courts of law requires to be preserved assiduously and with a sense of sanctity. The application was drafted like a writ petition, which does not appear as proper and appropriate.
9. In the result, the application stands dismissed and show cause notice issued by the court stands discharged. Matter stands closed finally. 10. Under the facts and circumstances of the case contesting respondent No. 2, Mr. P. Bhorot, the Commissioner (DP), and respondent No. 3, Mr. V. Chhibber, the Commissioner/Secretary (Finance), will have their option to be entitled to claim cost of Rs. 500 each from the petitioner of this case, Smt. Thounaojam Romie Devi.
