1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
JUDGMENT
D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4541/2000
(U.O.I. & Ors. Vs. Suraj Bhan & Ors.)
Date of Judgment : 17.02.2010
PRESENT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KAPADIA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
Mr. Kamal Dave, for the petitioners.
This petition has been filed by Railway against the
order dated 1.11.2000 passed by Central Administrative
Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Contempt Petition
No.47/1999 in Original Application No.406/1996.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners
that earlier on 7.1.1999 in OA No.406/1999, the following order
was passed :
“The O.A. Is accordingly allowed
with the direction to the respondents to
consider the case of the applicant for
absorption/regularisation as Jeep Driver
against 25% of the vacancies reserved for
departmental promotion from the unskilled and
semi-skilled categories subject to the
applicant’s passing the requisite trade test,
within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.”
2
Thus, it is clear that an order was made for
considering the case of the applicant for absorption/
regularisation as Jeep Driver against 25% of the vacancies
reserved for departmental promotion from the unskilled and
semi-skilled categories subject to the applicant’s passing the
requisite trade test, within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of the order.
As per learned counsel for the petitioner in
compliance of the said order, the case of the respondent Suraj
Bhan was considered and he was not fount suitable for
absorption/regularisation and this fact was brought to the notice
of learned Tribunal vide Annexure-7. Meaning thereby, the order
for considering the candidature of respondent Suraj Bhan was
complied with but by way of passing order dated 1.11.2000 in
the contempt petition, the learned Tribunal passed an order that
one months time is granted for compliance of the order dated
7.1.1999. Further, it was ordered that in case of non-
compliance, we direct the respondent No.1 shall be present
before the Court on the next date of hearing. Learned counsel
for the petitioner argued that this petition has been filed only
against the order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has
directed the respondent No.1 to remain present before the Court
3
on the next date of hearing.
After perusing the pleadings of this writ petition and
considering the totality of the circumstances, we are of the
opinion that once the order passed by Tribunal in O.A.
No.406/1996 has been complied with then the order for securing
the presence of respondent No.1 for non compliance of the order
is not justified.
In this view of the matter, this writ petition is
allowed. The order dated 1.11.2000 passed by Tribunal for
securing personal presence of respondent No.1 is hereby
quashed and set aside. If the contempt petition is still pending
with the tribunal, the Tribunal may proceed with the same
without compelling the respondent No.1 to remain present
before the Court.
(GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J (A.M. KAPADIA), J
arun