TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Modi, learned G.P.I for the op posite parties.
(2.) THE instant Contempt Application has been filed for non - compliance of the Judgment delivered by this Court on 19.6.2002 in CWJC No. 754 of 2002 (R). By reason of the said Judgment two basic directions had been made and they are that the respondents were directed to forthwith release and pay the entire arrears of their salary for the periods they worked together with interest at the rate of 10%. The other direction was that the respondents would reconsider the case of the petitioners and take a decision within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Both the parties agree that so far as the first direction is concerned i.e. In relation to payment of entire arrears of salary together with 10% interest, the same has been complied with. So far as the second direction is concerned, it is relevant to mention that the termination of the petitioners was principally for the reason that the Commissioner of Health had not given approval to the appointees. However, in the order that has been passed subsequent to the judgment of this Court on 29.1.2003 and which is annexed as Annexure D to the show -cause, some other grounds which were not pleaded by the respondents in the counter affidavit have been taken.
(3.) BE that as it may, since the opposite parties have substantially complied with the second part of the order to the effect that they were to dispose off the representations by a reasoned order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, this Court entertaining an application under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act cannot embark upon finding out whether the order is justified or not. It thus appears to this Court that some fresh grounds have been added but that should be the subject matter of a separate proceeding specially more so in view of the fact that while making the second direction, this Court made it clear that the relief of reinstatement at that stage could not be granted to the writ petitioners.;