The High Court of Madhya Pradesh CONC-1455-2014 7 Jabalpur, Dated : 13-01-2021 Heard Through Video Conferencing. Mr.Aditya Sangh
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 CONC-1455-2014 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh CONC-1455-2014 (SONA BAI Vs SHRI VINOD SINGH BAGHEL PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA AND OTHERS) 7 Jabalpur, Dated : 13-01-2021 Heard through Video Conferencing. Mr.Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Pushpendra Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. Mr.Lakhan Agrawal, Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, has joined this Court through Video Conferencing. The present contempt petition has been filed in the year 2014. The order which is said to have been not complied with by the State was passed on 18.01.2013 passed in W.P.No.806/2013(S). Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner who is a daily wage cook employed in the Government Post Matric Scheduled Caste Boys Hostel, Raipura, District- Burhanpur since 14.09.1992, filed a writ petition seeking direction to the respondents, who are the State of Madhya Pradesh through the Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare, the Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Bhopal, Collector Welfare Department Burhanpur and the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Burhanpur that regular pay-scale be granted to the petitioner in the light of light of circular dated 17.03.1978. At that juncture, it was urged before this Court that the aforesaid circular gave daily wage employees engaged in the Tribal Welfare Department, the benefit which has been given by the order passed in W.A.No.85/2011 (Dhanu Bai Vs. State of M.P. and Others) decided on 27.08.2011, by the Division Bench of this Court at Indore. Direction was sought that the respondents consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the decision rendered in 2 CONC-1455-2014 Dhannu Bai (Supra). The hearing was bi-parte, and the Government Advocate appearing for the State had no objection if such an innocuous direction was given to the respondents. Therefore, the petition was disposed of vide order dated 18.01.2013 with a direction to the respondents "to consider the claim of the petitioner as per decision rendered in Dhannu Bai (Supra). While considering the claim of the petitioner, respondents would be at liberty to take into consideration subsequent circular issued by the State Government in respect of grant of wages to daily wage employees and if these circulars supersedes the government order dated 17.03.1978, the respondents would be at liberty to take into consideration such subsequent development while considering the claim of the petitioner. Let a decision be taken within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order." Annexure-C/2 to the petition at page-11 is the acknowledgement from the office of the Collector, District-Burhanpur dated 03.04.2013 with regard to the receipt of the copy of the order passed by this Court on 18.01.2013 passed in W.P.No.806/2013 (S). The said acknowledgement also discloses that there are no vacant posts of daily wagers in the unreserved category in Burhanpur District and, therefore, the case of the petitioner was being filed and in future if vacancies opened up in unreserved category for regular post and taking into consideration the seniority, the regularization of the petitioner would be done. It is essential to mention here that the said acknowledgement dated 03.04.2013 is in a cyclostyled format with only the name of the parties, case number and the date of the order entered by hand. This petition, however, filed by the petitioner sought the grant of regular pay-scale and not regularization on the posts. Under the circumstances, it is clear that the respondents were 3 CONC-1455-2014 aware with the order passed by this Court atleast from 03.04.2013, if not before that. Thereafter, seven years have passed for the compliance of the said order and the case has been listed for several times and it only after this Court passed the order dated 18.12.2020 that the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Burhanpur has joined the Video Conferencing today. Learned counsel for the State and the Contemner have put-forth the following arguments. First of all, he has stated that R/3 Mr.Lakhan Agrawal, Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department has joined the office only in October, 2019. He has further drawn the attention of this Court to a clarification dated 28.02.2014, by which, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the applicant do not come within the ambit and scope of the circular dated 17.03.1978. Learned Additional Advocate General also states that there has been an inordinate delay in complying the order 18.01.2013 for which the State genuinely regrets. The contention raised by the learned Additional Advocate General are only accepted to the extent that R/3 joined the office of Assistant Commissioner in October, 2019. Thus, it is clear that his involvement is only after the said date. However, the inaction on the part of the State for a good seven years shows the sheer insensitivity of the State and its bureaucracy and is worthy of dereliction in the strongest terms. The State through its inactivity is partly responsible for the flood of writ petition before this Court and after the orders passed by this Court, it leads to filing of the contempt petition because the State and its instrumentalities do not comply with the order passed by this Court within the time period given in the order. In this case also the decision was to be taken only on the consideration of two aspects. Firstly, whether the orders of this Court passed in W.A.No.85/2011 (Dhanu Bai Vs. State of M.P. and Others) 4 CONC-1455-2014 would squarely apply on the petitioner ; and secondly the State was given the liberty to take into consideration the subsequent circular issued by the State Government in respect of grant of wages to daily wage employees and if the said circular superseded the government order dated 17.03.1978, the respondents were granted the liberty to take into consideration such subsequent development while considering the claim of the petitioner. However, as the claim of the petitioner was to be considered within three months from the date of passing of the order or from the date of receipt of the order, no subsequent developments after the period of three months could be taken into consideration for deciding the case of the petitioner. However, reliance upon the clarificatory note of 2014 is misplaced as the decision ought to have been taken by the State by 3rd July, 2013 and not beyond it. Undoubtedly, the State was given the liberty of taking into consideration all such circulars which may have been in existence before 03.07.2013 which have the effect of superseding the government order of 17.03.1978. This Court is of the view that undue liberty that has been granted from time to time and again by this Court for the compliance of its orders, is being taken for granted. The abject disdain of the State and its functionaries to the orders passed by this Court is only on account of the leniency shown by this Court. Time and again, looking at the work load of the State and its functionaries, this Court has been loath to proceed against the guilty in contempt. This has emboldened them repeatedly and they put the orders passed by this Court in the back-burn. The case at hand is a classic example. Seven years it has taken the State to come out with a pathetic response, pointing out to the clarification of 2014 to oust the petitioner from the ambit and scope of the order dated 18.01.2013 passed by this Court. The power that is given to the State and its functionaries are not without concomitant responsibility. Rudyard 5 CONC-1455-2014 Kipling, a famour author whose association with the State is legendary on account of his work " The Jungle Book", has observed "power without responsibility - the prerogative of the ****** throughout the ages." Time and again, the State has, by its violation or its non- compliance to the orders passed by this Court that it is an institution that prefers to have powers without responsibility. The respondent no.3 is directed to take a decision within two weeks strictly in accordance with the order dated 18.01.2013, where besides considering the judgement of this Court passed in W.A.No.85/2011 ( Dhanu Bai Vs. State of M.P. and Others) , and circular dated 17.03.1978, and if need be any other circular or order passed on or before 03.07.2013, which may have the effect of superseding the government order dated 17.03.1978. Let this be done within a period of two weeks from passing of this order. List this case on 02.02.2021. (ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE rk. .