Contempt petition against CS, GAD Secy
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Dec 7: In the case titled “Mohammad Mehrajud Din Khan Versus Arun Kumar Mehta, Chief Secretary and Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, General Administrative Department, Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice J K Maheshwari has issued direction to the standing counsel to seek necessary instructions within four weeks.
The petitioner filed contempt petition under Article 129 of the Constitution of India read with Order LV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and Rule 3(C) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 to punish the respondents for willful disobedience of order dated 21.11.2017 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 19493 of 2017.
Vide this order, Supreme Court recorded the assurance of the Advocate General appearing for the State that arrears are being worked out and the same would be paid to the petitioner expeditiously and in case before his retirement from service. Thereafter, the contempt proceedings were dropped as the DB judgment was being implemented in letter and spirit.
The petitioner contended that as on date order dated 21.11.2017 has not been implemented and the respondents are committing one contempt after another compelling the petitioner to file the instant contempt petition.
The facts are that on 9.12.2003 after rendering 22 years in the Government department the respondents compulsory retired the petitioner in public interest and was given three months pay in lieu of three months notice. The order pertaining to compulsory retirement was challenged by the petitioner before the J&K High Court which quashed premature retirement and was confirmed by Supreme Court.
As the petitioner was being discriminated and was not being inducted into Kashmir Administrative Services (KAS) inspite of the fact that many of his juniors were getting the KAS cadre, the petitioner filed writ petition before the J&K High Court which allowed the petitioner’s induction. The State challenged the Division Bench order dated 6.04.2017 before Supreme Court which asked the State to implement the Division Bench order.
On 17.08.2017 the Supreme Court took note of the fact that the High Court had initiated contempt proceeding and also imposed costs which were stayed by Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was of the view that the respondents-officers are in more serious contempt inspite of order dated 31.07.2017 passed by the court as the state was seeking adjournment for four weeks. Therefore, the Commissioner Secretary, GAD was directed to be personally present before this court along with the entire files pertaining to the induction.
The then Commissioner-Secretary to Government of Jammu and Kashmir, General Administrative Department was personally present before the Supreme Court along with the entire files pertaining to the induction and tendered his unconditional apology for inconvenience caused to court and as such contempt against the Commissioner-Secretary was dropped.
On 26.10.2017 in compliance with order dated 10.10.2017 the respondents posted the petitioner as Secretary to the Government, Department of Food, Civil, Supplies and Consumer Affairs. The Supreme Court recorded the statement of the Advocate General giving assurance that arrears are being worked out and the same would be paid to the petitioner expeditiously and in any case before his retirement from service.
But as on date no arrears have been given and on the contrary the petitioner was given compulsory retirement without following the due process of law. The petitioner has been requesting the respondents for release of pay and other arrears as per the order dated 21.11.2017 passed by this court. However, alleged contemnors have deliberately and willfully committed contempt of the court.
The petitioner contended that when the matter was listed in SC on 17.08.2017, 24.08.2017, 20.09.2017, 22.09.2017, 4.10.2017, 10.10.2017, 29.10.2017 and finally on 21.11.2017 the respondents made deceptive statement by misleading court to the extent of even giving an undertaking to avoid the axe of contempt and to wriggle out of court.
The petitioner case was argued by Advocate Keshav Thakur.
Follow our WhatsApp channel