Amitava Roy, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. M.M. Mehrishi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Raj Sharma, learned Additional Government Counsel and Mr. Amit Ojha on behalf of Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Additional Advocate General for the State -respondents. An imputation of deliberate non -compliance of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 5.10.2010 rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 352/2005, has been made by filing the instant contempt petition. The petitioner having unsuccessfully challenged in the writ petition, the penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect as a disciplinary measure, had filed the aforementioned appeal. By the judgment and order dated 5.10.2010, the appeal was allowed with the following operative directions: - In view of the above discussion, present appeal succeeds and accordingly impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14.03.2005 is set -aside. Consequently, impugned order of penalty dated 24.10.1992 and order dated 17.5.1994 passed by the appellate authority, are quashed and set aside. Appellant is held entitled to all the consequential benefits. Compliance of the judgment be made within a period of three months from the date of copy of this judgment is produced before the respondents. In the facts of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs.
(2.) AS would be evident from the quoted text, thereby the appellant was held entitled to all consequential benefits and the respondents were granted three months time for compliance of the judgment so rendered. The petitioner is back to this Court with the instant application complaining that though in terms of the minor penalty, he had suffered supersession in the matter of promotion to senior scale and selection scale of the Rajasthan Police Service as well as super -time scale in the Rajasthan Police Service and also to the Indian Police Service (hereafter referred to as 'IPS'), and further, in terms of the above -referred judgment, though the respondents were obliged in law to extend to him the above benefits, they did not do so, inspite of the fact that they were fully aware of the steps to be taken and also the time frame therefore. The respondent No. 2, in his reply, has pleaded in substance that in compliance of the judgment and order dated 5.10.2010, a review DPC was held on 25.10.2011, and that therefore, the accusation of deliberate non -compliance of the directions of this Court is wholly untrue. This respondent, by an additional affidavit, has also brought on record the fact that in furtherance of the process of compliance of the judgment and order dated 5.10.2010, the Department of Personnel, Rajasthan, Jaipur, has by its letter dated 3.8.2012 forwarded the name of the petitioner to the Union Public Service Commission (hereafter referred to as 'UPSC') with regard to his promotion to the Indian Police Service. Copy of the letter has also been annexed to the said affidavit. By an interim application being IA No. 5742/2013, the petitioner has asserted that after the pronouncement of the judgment and order dated 5.10.2010, the State Government by order dated 1.11.2011, revised the orders in respect of his promotion to the senior, selection and super -time scales and placed him above Shri Surendra Kumar in the super -time scale. He however, alleged that no action has been taken to convene the review DPC for consideration of his case for promotion to the IPS. He alleged that the order dated 1.11.2011 notwithstanding, the respondents again revised the promotion orders and the seniority of the petitioner by placing him below Shri Surendra Kumar in the super -time scale, which according to him was impermissible as the latter was junior to him. The petitioner filed another interim application being IA No. 6661/20213 for a direction to the respondents to convene DPC for consideration of his case for promotion to the IPS vis -a -vis the vacancies for the year(s) in which his juniors had been so promoted. He alleged as well that there was a move to consider the case of one Shri Mahipal Singh junior to him for such promotion to the IPS. In response thereto, the respondent No. 2, in his reply, reiterated that the case of the petitioner had already been forwarded to the UPSC for necessary action with regard to his promotion to the IPS. That the confidential records of the petitioner with regard to the said process had already been forwarded by the Department of Personnel, Rajasthan to the UPSC, has also been stated. That the related process with regard to the fixation of inter se seniority of the petitioner is being delayed as the issue pertaining thereto is subjudice in Court, has been stated as well. Whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically argued that the facts of the case demonstrate in unequivocal terms that the respondents are guilty of wilful and deliberate disobedience of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 5.10.2010 rendered in the aforementioned special appeal. Ms. Sharma has argued to the contrary. According to her, the pleaded assertions of the respondent No. 2, indicate in unequivocal terms that necessary and immediate steps, in compliance of the decision of this Court, have been taken.
(3.) UPON hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleaded averments and the documents in support thereof, we are of the view that the imputation of wilful and deliberate non -compliance of the directions of this Court as embodied in the judgment and order dated 5.10.2010, cannot be sustained. It is a petition alleging contempt by conscious violation of an order of a court of law, and ought not to be converted into an execution proceeding by examining the pros and cons of the process that ensues to adjudge the legality or otherwise of the decisions, if taken.;