- (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner by referring order dated 29.3.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) 1833 of 2002 pointed out that this order has not been complied with in its true spirit though there was an specific direction to the Opp. Parties to treat the petitioner in continuous service with all consequential benefits. It is also pointed out that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the Opp. Parties have preferred Letters Patent Appeal on various grounds, and the said LPA has been dismissed by the Division Bench by its order dated 24.1.2013. However, till date the order passed by this Court has not been complied with. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though the petitioner has been reinstated in service but till date no salary has been paid to him.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the Opp. Parties by referring office order dated 14.2.2003 (Annexure -A to the supplementary show cause) pointed out that the petitioner has been reinstated in service and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the Opp. Party, the order passed by this Court has been complied with and the present contempt proceeding is required to be dropped. The learned counsel for the Opp. Party further submitted that the order dated 29.3.2012 was passed by this Court after considering the fact that the Patna High Court passed several orders dismissing the LPAs preferred by the State, thereby, the order passed by the Single Judge has been confirmed but in those matters, the employees were recruited on regular basis and therefore, there was no question of regularization of their services in those cases. It is submitted that the case of the present petitioner cannot be compared or treated similar to that of the cases of the employees, who were in the writ petitions as well as L.P.As. It is further submitted that the petitioner services cannot be regularized in view of order dated 29.3.2012 and therefore, the Opp. Parties rightly and properly reinstated the petitioner to the original position in service. The petitioner can not be allowed to claim regularization. The aforesaid submission of the learned counsel of the Opp. Party amounts to re -opening of a case on merit and that cannot be done in a contempt proceeding. This Court is required to examine as to whether direction of this Court has been implemented/executed by the Opp. Party or not in the present case. It appears that the Opp. Party preferred Letters Patent Appeal and the said Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court and thereafter, the Opp. Parties have not chosen to prefer any appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court till date. Therefore, the Opp. Parties are required to implement the order dated 29.3.2012 after careful consideration of the same. Paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of order dated 29th March 2012 passed in WPS No. 1833 of 2002 by this Court is relevant for the purpose of understanding before the execution made by the Opp. Party and therefore, the same is re -produced herein below: - "7. As against that, the learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the appointment of the petitioner in September, 1981, was an illegal appointment, as there was a ban on such appointments and therefore, the petitioner's services cannot be regularized. 8. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 4.9.1981 initially for a period of six months on temporary basis and from time to time, the appointment of the petitioner was extended up till March, 2001. It appears that vide order dated 23.03.2001, the Respondents passed an order of termination. It appears that in similar set of facts, the Patna high Court allowed a batch of writ petitions and quashed the order of termination. On perusal of the judgment, referred to and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 1118 of 2001 with 1120 of 2001 with 1371 of 2001 with 1634 of 2001 with 2059 of 2001 with 3573 of 2001, it becomes clear that the facts of the present case is identical to the facts of the above -referred cases filed before the Patna High Court. It also appears that the Respondents being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, preferred a group of L.P.As. bearing nos. L.P.A. No. 540 of 2001 with 541 of 2001 with 542 of 2001 with 543 of 2001 with 544 of 2001 with 545 of 2001 with 551 of 2001 with 552 of 2001 with 562 of 2001 with 672 of 2001 with 675 of 2001 with 682 of 2001 with 683 of 2001 with 691 of 2001 with 693 of 2001 with 698 of 2001 with 705 of 2001 with 707 of 2001 with 709 of 2001 with 711 of 2001 (Annexure -18) before the Patna High Court but the said L.P.As. have been dismissed/rejected and thereby the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been confirmed. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Respondents cannot be accepted, as similar contentions were also raised before the Patna High Court but the same were not accepted while deciding the above referred C.W.J.C. and L.P.A. and the petitions were ordered to be allowed. Since the facts of the present case is similar to that of the above -referred cases, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Under the circumstances, the present petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The order of termination dated 23.03.2001 (Annexure -14) is hereby quashed. The Respondents are directed to treat the petitioner in continuous service with all consequential benefits".
(3.) IT appears that by order dated 29.3.2012, after considering the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and also after considering the previous decisions given by the Patna High Court in similar set of facts, the Opp. Parties were specifically directed by this Court to treat the petitioner in continuous service with all consequential benefits.;