MALATHI DAS (RETD.) NOW P.B. MAHISHY Vs. SURESH
LAWS(SC)-2014-3-15
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
March 07,2014
Malathi Das (Retd.) Now P.B. Mahishy
Appellant
VERSUS
SURESH
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
K GNANAVEL VS. GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY, REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-388] [REFERRED TO]P. RAJESH AND ORS. VS. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-12-167] [REFERRED TO]
P. SANKAR VS. THE HOME SECRETARY [LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-375] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-6-285] [REFERRED TO]
S. RAJENDRAN VS. SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2018-3-969] [REFERRED TO]
D.RAMESHKUMAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-609] [REFERRED TO]
S.THANGADURAI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-589] [REFERRED TO]
R.SENTHILKUMAR VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-8-226] [REFERRED TO]
S SIVAMAHESWARI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY [LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-363] [REFERRED TO]
P.V.MURUGANANDAM VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-271] [REFERRED TO]
R.SHANKAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-317] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA & ORS VS. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL & ORS ETC ETC [LAWS(SC)-2019-1-63] [REFERRED TO]
B. NAGARAJAN VS. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-372] [REFERRED TO]
SURAIYA TABASSUM VS. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA [LAWS(DLH)-2021-8-104] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ASSAM VS. SRI UPEN DAS [LAWS(GAU)-2017-6-23] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SANT LAL ETC. ETC. [LAWS(SC)-2019-1-460] [REFERRED TO]
M SAKTHIVEL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-60] [REFERRED TO]
PURUSHOTAM DAS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS [LAWS(P&H)-2018-7-277] [REFERRED TO]
K. SELVADURAI AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-1199] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. N. B. BALIHALLI [LAWS(KAR)-2021-7-84] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. MAYANNA GOWDA M [LAWS(KAR)-2023-8-1335] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH PRASAD YADAV VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-7-42] [REFERRED TO]
P.VENKATACHALAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-6-316] [REFERRED TO]
V.KARUPPASAMY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-6-315] [REFERRED TO]
NAW RAJ BHATTARAI VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2021-4-4] [REFERRED TO]
P. SHANTHI VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2018-6-1028] [REFERRED TO]
E MARI VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-113] [REFERRED TO]
P. DEIVENDRAN AND OTHERS VS. TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-1079] [REFERRED TO]
A. GURUVAMMAL VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES [LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-371] [REFERRED TO]
S DHARMARAJ VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-818] [REFERRED TO]
MORARJI DESAI/EKALAVYA RESIDENTIAL PRE VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2016-8-254] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDARA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-3-159] [REFERRED TO]
M. MAHALINGAM VS. ENGINEER IN CHIEF, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2017-12-399] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU VS. TAMIL NADU MAKKAL NALA PANIYALARGAL [LAWS(SC)-2023-4-31] [REFERRED TO]
A.RUBAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-272] [REFERRED TO]
M.LOGANATHAN VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2018-8-1002] [REFERRED TO]
K. SURESH AND OTHERS VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2018-6-1143] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA KUMAR NAYAK VS. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(ORI)-2017-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
THAMBUSAMY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-588] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal is against the order dated 26.03.2007 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in a contempt proceeding registered as CCC No. 669 of 2006. By the aforesaid order, the High Court, after holding the appellants, prima facie, guilty of commission of contempt has granted them two weeks time to comply with the order in respect of which disobedience has been alleged failing which the matter was directed to be posted for framing of charge. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present appeal.
(3.)It may be necessary to briefly outline the relevant facts on the basis of which the allegations of commission of contempt have been made and the conclusions, indicated above, have been reached by the High Court.
445 daily rated employees of the State serving in different departments, including the 74 respondents herein, had instituted W.P. Nos. 39117-176/1999 claiming regularization of service. By order dated 15.12.1999, the High Court following an earlier order dated 10.9.1999 passed in similar writ petitions i.e. W.P. Nos. 33541-571/98 etc. had granted the relief(s) claimed by the writ petitioners-respondents. The aforesaid order dated 15.12.1999 of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by order dated 24.01.2001 passed in the writ appeals filed by the State. The petitions filed by the State seeking special leave to appeal against the order dated 24.01.2001 were dismissed by this Court on 22.07.2005. Two significant facts need to be noted at this stage. Firstly, that the order dated 10.09.1999 passed in writ petition Nos. 33541-571/1998 which was followed by the High Court while deciding the writ petitions (Writ Petition Nos. 39117-176/1999) filed by the respondents had been implemented by the State Government by granting regularization to the petitioners therein. The second significant fact that would require to be noticed is that following the dismissal of the special leave petitions filed by the State by order dated 22.07.2005, a Scheme dated 29.12.2005 was framed by the State Government to implement the order dated 15.12.1999 passed in the writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 39117-176/1999). 161 persons who had filed contempt proceedings for non-compliance of the order dated 15.12.1999 were regularized on 29.12.2005. Thereafter, on 8.3.2006, 64 other persons, who were similarly placed to the aforesaid 161 persons as well as to the present 74 respondents, were also regularized. Such regularization was made without the concerned persons having to initiate any contempt proceeding. The cases of the other petitioners in W.P. Nos.39117-76/1999 were, however, not considered.
(2.)This appeal is against the order dated 26.03.2007 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in a contempt proceeding registered as CCC No. 669 of 2006. By the aforesaid order, the High Court, after holding the appellants, prima facie, guilty of commission of contempt has granted them two weeks time to comply with the order in respect of which disobedience has been alleged failing which the matter was directed to be posted for framing of charge. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present appeal.
(3.)It may be necessary to briefly outline the relevant facts on the basis of which the allegations of commission of contempt have been made and the conclusions, indicated above, have been reached by the High Court.
445 daily rated employees of the State serving in different departments, including the 74 respondents herein, had instituted W.P. Nos. 39117-176/1999 claiming regularization of service. By order dated 15.12.1999, the High Court following an earlier order dated 10.9.1999 passed in similar writ petitions i.e. W.P. Nos. 33541-571/98 etc. had granted the relief(s) claimed by the writ petitioners-respondents. The aforesaid order dated 15.12.1999 of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by order dated 24.01.2001 passed in the writ appeals filed by the State. The petitions filed by the State seeking special leave to appeal against the order dated 24.01.2001 were dismissed by this Court on 22.07.2005. Two significant facts need to be noted at this stage. Firstly, that the order dated 10.09.1999 passed in writ petition Nos. 33541-571/1998 which was followed by the High Court while deciding the writ petitions (Writ Petition Nos. 39117-176/1999) filed by the respondents had been implemented by the State Government by granting regularization to the petitioners therein. The second significant fact that would require to be noticed is that following the dismissal of the special leave petitions filed by the State by order dated 22.07.2005, a Scheme dated 29.12.2005 was framed by the State Government to implement the order dated 15.12.1999 passed in the writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 39117-176/1999). 161 persons who had filed contempt proceedings for non-compliance of the order dated 15.12.1999 were regularized on 29.12.2005. Thereafter, on 8.3.2006, 64 other persons, who were similarly placed to the aforesaid 161 persons as well as to the present 74 respondents, were also regularized. Such regularization was made without the concerned persons having to initiate any contempt proceeding. The cases of the other petitioners in W.P. Nos.39117-76/1999 were, however, not considered.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.