Judgment:
Sudhakar Dutt Pandey versus Vijay Singh Verma & ORS.Con.C.No.1523/2012 21/09/2012 Shri Rajendra Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Munish Saini, learned counsel for the non-applicants.
Inter-alia contending that certain directions issued by this Court on 4.5.2012 in W.P.No.5411/2011(s) has not been complied with, this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt.
Petitioner had filed the writ petition and it was the grievance of the petitioner that his claim for promotion from the post of Steno Typist to the post of Stenographer in accordance with circular dated 18.2.1983 has not been considered.
This Court noted the grievance of the petitioner and found that the representation of the petitioner is still pending and no decision has been taken and accordingly observing that instead of admitting the petition and keeping it pending, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim, the petition was disposed of by an innocuous order directing the competent authority to decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure-P6) within 60 days.
not from the reply filed by the respondents represented by Shri Munish Saini, it is seen that the representation has been decided and promotion has already been granted to the petitioner to the post of Stenographer.
Shri Rajendra Pandey, learned counsel submits that the promotion has not been granted in accordance with entitlement of Sudhakar Dutt Pandey versus Vijay Singh Verma & ORS.the petitioner, he is entitled to the promotion from the earlier date than the promotion granted and, therefore, compliance is not complete.
It may be taken note of that in the writ petition, the writ court has not entered into the merits of the matter not the claim of the petitioner has been adjudicated on merit.
The writ petition was disposed of only directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner.
In doing so, respondents have granted promotion to the petitioner in accordance with their assessment and if the petitioner feels that the same is not granted to him as per his entitlement, it is for the petitioner to assail the same and get it adjudicated on merit in accordance with law.
The question of grant of promotion particularly with regard to his entitlement from a particular date has not been adjudicated by this Court.
Merely because the promotion has not been granted as per his entitlement it is not appropriate for this Court to initiate action for contempt.
The question of grant of promotion to the petitioner from a particular date, assessment of his case and entitlement of the petitioner can be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and not in these proceedings for contempt.
Accordingly, finding the respondents to have decided the representation of the petitioner as directed by this Court as per their assessment, it is not appropriate not from this Court to interfere into the matter.
Sudhakar Dutt Pandey versus Vijay Singh Verma & ORS.The application for contempt is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the subsequent action afresh in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid, respondents are discharged from the proceedings and the application for contempt is disposed of.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge nd