- (1.) THIS application has been preferred against alleged breach of the order passed by this Court dated 16th September, 2010 in W.P. (S) No.5757 of 2009 and also in breach of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.25 of 2011 dated 14th September, 2011.
(2.) COUNSEL for the applicant submitted that initially this petitioner was employed as an Assistant Engineer in Sanjay Gandhi Co-operative Soot Mill Limited, Ranchi, in the year 1996. Thereafter, he was transferred on deputation by the State of Jharkhand in a Municipal Corporation in the year 2001 and, thereafter, he was transferred on deputation in the year 2007 at Mineral Area Development Authority. The Mineral Area Development Authority had passed an order dated 12th October, 2010 for repatriation of this petitioner in the Sanjay Gandhi Co-operative Soot Mill Limited, Ranchi. This order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. (S) disposed of vide order dated 16th No.5757 of 2009 which was September, 2010. In para-7 of this order, this Court had given following directions: - "7. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned Notification, dated 12.10.2009 (Annexure-11) is hereby quashed. The Respondent-M.A.D.A. shall, however, be at liberty to take an appropriate decision if it intends finally to repatriate the petitioner's services to such existing unit, which could accept his services. Alternatively, the Respondent-M.A.D.A./Urban Development Department may consider the possibility of absorbing the petitioner in its own services in accordance with the Rules of procedure." It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the aforesaid order was slightly modified in L.P.A. No.25 of 2011 and in para-5 of the order dated 14th September, 2011 of the said L.P.A., following are the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court: - "5. We do not find any illegality in the order impugned but we found from para-7 of the order that no such direction has been given but only it has been ordered that the MADA/Urban Development Department may consider the possibility of absorbing the writ petitioner in its own services in accordance with the Rules of procedure. Therefore, so far as repatriation order is concerned, that was absolutely illegal and rest of the direction is only for consideration of the appellant in accordance with the Rules of procedure and to find out whether the services of the writ petitioner-respondent can be absorbed or not."
(3.) IT is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the respondents have deliberately committed breach of this order and/or have not understood the aforesaid order and wrongly passed the order dated 31st January, 2012. The said order has been passed by the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, which is annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents dated 18th January, 2013.;