Umesh Prasad v. The State of Jharkhand through Sri Sudhir Tripathy, the Chief Secretary, Government
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
other petitioners, the writ petition stands dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In paragraph no. 4 of the order dated 15th February 2017 passed in WP(S) No. 397 of 2015, the following direction was issued by the writ 2 Contempt Case (Civil) No. 46 of 2019 Court: 4. In that view of the matter, subject to…
- Para 55. In the aforesaid circumstances, since a fresh cause of action has arisen, I am not inclined to proceed further with this contempt case and, accordingly, it is closed with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the remedy, if any, available to him in…
Judgment
The State of Jharkhand through Sri Sudhir Tripathy, the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, at Project Building, Ranchi at PO-Dhurwa, PS- Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. Indushekhar Chaturvedi, the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand, at Project Building, Ranchi at PO-Dhurwa, PS- Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand 3. Sri Sanjay Kumar, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand, Doranda, PO-Doranda, PS-Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand 4. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commissioner, situated at F-49/50, Sector-III, Dhurwa, PO-Dhurwa, PS-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004. … Respondents ------- (Through V.C.) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mr. Yashvardhan Sahay, Advocate : Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Advocate ------- Order No. /Dated: 28 th January 2022 Alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 15th February 2017 passed in WP(S) No. 397 of 2015, the present petitioner who was writ petitioner no. 8 has filed this contempt petition for initiating a proceeding against the contemnors under provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act,
Mr. Yashvardhan Sahay, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that by an order dated 15th February 2017 passed in WP(S) No. 397 of 2015 a direction was issued for consideration of the claim of the petitioner nos. 8 and 16 for their regularisation in service, however, the name of the petitioner was not included in the list prepared for regularisation. The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that no reason has been communicated to the petitioner for not including the name of the petitioner in the list of the employees for regularisation.
Operative part
In paragraph no. 4 of the order dated 15th February 2017 passed in WP(S) No. 397 of 2015, the following direction was issued by the writ 2 Contempt Case (Civil) No. 46 of 2019 Court:
4. In that view of the matter, subject to verification of the aforesaid stand taken on behalf of the petitioner nos. 8 and 16, their claim for regularisation shall be considered in terms of order dated 20.01.2017 passed in WPS No. 466 of 2015. In respect of other petitioners, the writ petition stands dismissed.
A glance at the aforesaid paragraph no. 4 would disclose that the claim of the petitioner nos. 8 and 16 in WP(S) No. 397 of 2015 was to be considered after verification of the stand taken by them before the writ Court. This observation of the writ Court gave liberty to the State respondents to examine the records for verification of the stand taken by the present petitioner also.
In the aforesaid circumstances, since a fresh cause of action has arisen, I am not inclined to proceed further with this contempt case and, accordingly, it is closed with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the remedy, if any, available to him in law. Tanuj/ (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: other petitioners, the writ petition stands dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.