Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. - (1.) The present contempt application has been preferred alleging violation of a judgment and order dated 15th July, 1988 passed in Civil Rule No.3190 (W) of 1984.
(2.) The operative part of the order dated 15th July, 1988 runs as follows: "The petitioner completed the whole combined course of Departmental Examination covering a period of 36 weeks at a place known as "Neemuch". He was directly recruited Head Constable and he was designated as an 'under officer'. The petitioner could not have been promoted because of the various reasons to which I have already referred. The only contention in this application is whether the petitioner shall be required to appear at the further test for being considered for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector. I have given anxious consideration to the reason. The contention in my view and having regard to the facts that the petitioner is a direct recruited constable and designated as Under Officer and having completed the departmental examination successfully the SOS/UOS Course he would have been eligible for his promotion had he not been dismissed from service. The Court of Appeal on 17.1.80 directed the department for reinstatement of the petitioner and he was entitled to all benefits which has been denied to him from 1972. The contempt application was also made and orders were passed which I have already referred to. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case the Rule is allowed to the extent indicated above. The petitioner shall be considered for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector. The petitioner shall be promoted notionally to the post of Inspector with retrospective effect when according to the seniority and on the basis of the qualification he was due for promotion considering that he was not dismissed from service from 1972 till 1980. He will be promoted to the post of Inspector according to seniority. His promotion will be dated back but no monetary benefit will be given to the petitioner. On the basis of notional promotion in the post of SubInspector his seniority shall be determined and he shall be considered to the post of Inspector. His seniority in the post of Inspector shall be determined from the date he should be deemed to have been notionally promoted."
(3.) The petitioner, appearing in person, submits that he was appointed to the post of Head Constable in Central Reserve Police Force (in short, CRPF) on 20th August, 1969. He was illegally dismissed from his service on 25th May, 1972. The said order was challenged and on the basis of orders passed in a writ petition and thereafter in an appeal, he was reinstated. Subsequent thereto, he submitted an application for promotion but as the same was not considered, he preferred the writ petition being Civil Rule No. 3190 (W) of 1984. The same was disposed of by an order dated 15th July, 1988. Challenging the said order an appeal was preferred by the respondents being F.M.A. 52 of 1994 and the same was dismissed on 17th March, 1998. In the midst thereof, an order of premature retirement was passed against him on 31st August, 1996. Challenging the said order he preferred a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 527/97 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed by an order dated 3rd November, 1997 with liberty to move the High Court. On the basis of such direction he filed a fresh writ petition being WP 915 (W) of 1999 inter alia praying for implementation of the order dated 15th July, 1988. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 31st July, 2001 directing the respondents to calculate the post retiral benefits of the petitioner strictly in conformity with the judgment and order dated 15th July, 1988. In the midst thereof, he preferred the present contempt application on 17th March, 1999. In the same an order was passed on 25th June, 2012 observing inter alia that the alleged contemnors shall honour their own office order dated 7th August, 1989 and carry out the same. On 17th May, 2013 an application being CAN 5379 of 2013 was filed on behalf of CRPF praying for an enquiry alleging inter alia that the memo dated 7th August, 1989 produced by the petitioner did not bear the signature of the issuing authority and its veracity was doubtful. However, on 19th January, 2015 the contempt application was dismissed as none appeared on his behalf. Assailing the said order he preferred a Special Leave Petition and the same was allowed by an order dated 26th September, 2016 setting aside the order dated 19th January, 2015 and remitting the matter to this Court. Subsequent thereto, he preferred an application being CAN 10908 of 2012 for bringing on record the new incumbents who have joined the concerned posts.;