15 yrs on, High Court decides contempt petition, holds Chandigarh officials guilty

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, May 17

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held senior officials of the Chandigarh Administration guilty of contempt for failing to comply with a 2008 Division Bench order in a service matter.

The Bench had held the petitioners entitled to all consequential benefits by treating them as ‘regularly appointed lecturers’ from their initial appointment date. The petitioners had to return to the court after non-compliance. Taking up the matter, Justice Rajbir Sehrawat observed that their status as lecturers in the Chandigarh Administration stood converted to ‘regularly appointee lecturers’ for all intents and purposes, and for all legal provisions. The petitioners were accordingly entitled to, among other things, annual increments, revision of pay, senior pay scale and pensionary benefits by counting the entire service.

The petition alleging contempt of court was filed in 2009 against then Technical Education Joint Secretary Prithi Chand, then UT Home Secretary-cum-Secretary, Technical Education, Ram Niwas and another functionary by Ishwar Dayal and another petitioner through senior advocate Pawan Kumar with Vidushi Kumar. Available information suggests the set-up now has changed with the superannuation of the respondents.

Justice Sehrawat asserted: “Since the respondents have already committed contempt of court qua the order qua which the contempt is asserted, they deserve to be convicted and sentenced in accordance with law”.

Justice Sehrawat at the same time took note of submission by the counsel for the respondents to grant an opportunity to comply with the order. The Bench asserted that it did not find any ground to adjourn the matter further. But an additional opportunity was granted to the respondents in the interest of justice to do the needful in the matter “so as to purge the contempt committed by them”.

Fixing the matter for further hearing in July last week, Justice Sehrawat made it clear that further adjournment would not be granted in the matter. “It is further ordered that if the order is not complied with, the respondent concerned shall remain personally present before the court on the next date of hearing, to receive further orders in the contempt proceedings,” Justice Sehrawat concluded.

The wait may sound atypical, but is not exceptional. The High Court currently has no less than 4,33,519 cases pending, including 1,61,354 criminal matters involving life and liberty. No less than 19,550 or 4.51% of the total cases are pending for 20 to 30 years. The situation is unlikely to improve in the coming months following a shortage of 30 Judges. The High Court currently has 55 Judges as against the sanctioned strength of 85.