HIGH COURT OF MADAHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR

SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH KAKADE

CONC No.40 of 2012

PETITIONER: Smt. Devika Patil, W/o Shri Roop Chand Patil, Aged about 54 years, Working as Peon, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Burhanpur, Distt. Burhanpur (MP)

Versus

RESPONDENT: Shri Ajatshatru Shrivastava, Managing Director, M.P.State Agriculture Marketing Board, 26, Arera Hills, Kisan Bhawan, Bhopal (MP)

None for the petitioner.

None for the respondent.

O R D E R ( 20.04.2016)

This contempt petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the Order dated 10.01.11 passed in WP No.317/2011 (S).

2. The petitioner who is working as Peon in Krishi Upanj Mandi Samiti, Burhanpur, inter alia seeking a direction to the respondent that despite putting in more than 10 years of service she is not being considered for regularization in accordance with the policy dated 16.05.2007 of the State of M.P. formulated in pursuant to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1.

3. Writ petition No. 317/2011 came for up hearing and same was disposed of by the Court vide Order dated 10.01.11 with a direction to the respondents to extend the similar benefit to the petitioner as has been granted to the juniors and fix her seniority in accordance with the rules. The petitioner shall also be entitled for difference of wages from the date when her juniors were regularized. It was directed that suitable order be passed within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order.

4. Pursuant to aforesaid direction, the petitioner submitted common representation to the respondents on 31.01.11 which was duly received but the respondent has not taken any action for redressing the grievance of the petitioner, hence this contempt petition.

5. None appeared for the parties on date of hearing i.e. on 12.04.16.

6. The answering respondent at the outset tenders his unconditional and unqualified apology in reply filed by him. As evident from this reply dated 19.10.15 of the respondent , case of petitioner for regularization was referred to the State Level Screening Committee in terms of the circular dated 16.05.2007 along with other incumbents in the year 2011 itself. The committee approved the case of petitioner for regularization and accordingly the services of the petitioner were regularized on the post of Asstt. Sub Inspector vide Order dated 08.07.11 (Annexure R/1). It is further contended in the reply that order passed in Writ Petition was sought to be modified on behalf of the Board vide RP No.868/2012 and the same has been has been modified vide Annexure R/2 appropriately. It is pointed out that in view of order passed in RP No.868/2012 and regularization of services of petitioner on the post of Asstt. Sub Inspector, nothing remains to be execuded and the directions issued in the petition, as stood modified, are substantially complied with.

2

7. In view of facts made hereinabove, the answering respondent prays, as no case is made out warranting initiation of contempt proceedings, hence the rule nisi issued against him be discharged.

8. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual scenario, it is crystal clear since the order has been already been complied with, nothing survives in the matter after passing of the order by this Court on dated 10.01.11 in WP No.317/11 (S) and in light of modified order dated 05.12.12 passed in RP No. 868/12.

9. In case the petitioner is still aggrieved by the manner in which his representation has been decided and his claim settled, he may resort to such remedy as may be available under the law for challenging the order passed by the respondent.

10. Accordingly, with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner ,in view of compliance report, the respondent stands discharged and the rule nisi issued against the respondent stand discharged. The contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(Subhash Kakade) Judge.

Jk.