TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, learned G.P. II for the respondents.
(2.) REFERENCE in this case may be made to the order dated 12.6.2003, wherein the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was recorded to the effect that one Sanjay Kumar, whose services had also been terminated on the same ground, was reinstated on the basis of an order passed in M.J.C. No. 147 of 1997 (R). Accordingly, this Court directed that the records of the connected cases be called for. 3. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, learned G.P. II submits that he has personally inspected the records of CWJC No. 1384 of 1996 (R) as also the Contempt Application filed therein and he submits that the case of the petitioner is absolutely identical and that the stand of the State in the other case was also similar. In the case of Sanjay Kumar, this Court quashed Annexure 10 (i.e., the order by which his services had been said to be illegal). When the respondents did not reinstate Sanjay Kumar, he filed a Contempt Application which was registered as M.J.C. No. 147 of 1997 (R) and in that case the cause that was filed was taken note of and it was observed that the order of the Court had been implemented and that the petitioner had already been reinstated in service.
(3.) THE order of the Honble Single Judge passed in the aforementioned Contempt Application is reproduced below : "Heard learned counsel for both the parties. This application has been filed for taking action for disobedience of the Court order dated 15 -11 -96 passed in CWJC No. 1384/96 (R) vide order dated 15.11.96 the petitioners writ application was allowed and it was directed that the termination order of the petitioner as contained in Annexure -10, to the writ application be quashed and his case is to be considered on similarly situated other employees. From the show cause filed on behalf of O.P. No. 2 it can be said that the order of the Court had been implemented though with delay and the petitioner has already reinstated in the service in compliance of the order of the Court. So far as giving the same benefit as entitled to other employees it was contended on behalf of O.P. No. 2 that a L.P.A. No. 524/97 (R) had also been filed as against the impugned order and so the petitioner will also get the other benefit in consonance with the order to be passed in L.P.A. No. 524/97 (R). As the order has been substantially complied with, this contempt matter is hereby dropped,";