- (1.) MR .Bijay Kumar Tripathy is present along with counsel. One second supplementary show cause has been filed by the contemnor no.2, Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand. Along with this affidavit, copy of the order dated 10.1.2011 passed in S.L.P No.CC 17723/2010 (State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Ila Sinha) has been annexed. It is submitted that involving the same issue in the S.L.P preferred by the State, Hon'ble Supreme Court stayed the direction contained in the judgment of the High Court, which is apparent from the order dated 10.1.2011 passed in Ila Sinha's case. In the matter of judgment relevant in this contempt petition, S.L.P No. CC 16350/2012 has been preferred by the State to challenge the judgment of this Court dated 28th June, 2011, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court directed for issuance of notice in the application for condonation of delay and ordered that the matter to be heard along with S.L.P (C) No.1377/2011.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 30th July, 2012 before this Court it was pointed out that Hon'ble Supreme Court has already dismissed S.L.P preferred by the State, being S.L.P No.CC 8793/2005 and that was dismissed on merit and therefore, the judgment attained finality. It is also submitted that the State may not have brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the controversy has already been decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P No.CC 8793/2005 and it may not have brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in S.L.P No.CC 17723/2010, interim order was passed. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if all the facts are correct and the same issue was and is involved in three S.L.Ps being S.L.P No. CC 8793/2005, S.L.P No. CC 17723/2010 and S.L.P No. CC 16350/2012, then there are lapse on the part of the State in bringing to the knowledge of Hon'ble Supreme Court that the issue has been decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P (CC) 8793/2005 and in one S.L.P, interim order is passed and in another S.L.P, no interim order was passed because of such serious lapse on the part of the State. We are constrained to observe that even after framing of Litigation Policy, yet the State machineries are not serious in avoiding litigation, rather to say the State Officers are creating more litigations. As per the Litigation Policy, when the question of law is finally decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the State is under obligation to bring to the notice of Courts that fact so that identical cases may be decided. Because of this lapse, different orders may be passed by the Courts, if the facts stated by the counsel for the petitioner are correct. Therefore, the State is directed to file an affidavit and state on oath that whether in S.L.P No. CC 8793/2005, S.L.P No. CC 17723/2010 and S.L.P No. CC 16350/2012, similar issue is involved or not.
(3.) WE are making it clear that there is no interim order against the judgment dated 28th June, 2011 and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the similar directions have been complied with in other cases. Therefore, the State is directed to further state on oath whether the similar benefit has been given to other persons, who obtained order from the High Court and if the similar benefit has been given to other persons, why the benefit has not been given to the petitioner in this case.;