Uttarakhand High Court
CLCON/138/2013 of Dr. Subhash Chandra Sarkar Vs Dr. D. S. Pundir on 31 December 2013
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Contempt Petition No.138 of 2013 Dr. Subhash Chandra Sarkar ………Petitioner Versus Dr. D.S. Pundir ………Respondent Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Mr. Udyog Shukla, Advocate, present for the petitioner. 2. Mr.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALCivil Contempt Petition No.138 of 2013
Dr. Subhash Chandra Sarkar ………Petitioner
Versus
Dr. D.S. Pundir ………Respondent
Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
Mr. Udyog Shukla, Advocate, present for the petitioner.
2. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Chief Standing Counsel, present for the respondent.
3. Petitioner is an employee of the Bipin Tripathi Kumaon Institute of Technology (Dwarahat), Almora where he works as Workshop Superintendent. Since he was not getting promotion, he filed Writ Petition No.1077 of 2012 (SS) seeking direction from this Hon’ble Court. The writ petition was, however, disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 13.03.2013 by the following order:- “This writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent no. 4 to treat a copy of the writ petition as a representation and consider the petitioner’s case in accordance with law after giving notice to the petitioner.
In the event, other candidates who are similarly placed with that of the petitioner are allowed this relief, the petitioner should be granted such relief.
The entire exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.
No order as to costs.”
4. Thereafter, a Committee was constituted which consisted of Head of Department, C.S.E. Department and after examining the entire service record of the petitioner from 1991 to 2011 and the Committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner’s service record is not satisfactory, hence, he could not be promoted.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no notice was given to the petitioner as directed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 13.03.2013 and even the adverse entries were not communicated to him.
6. Since notice has not been given and ultimately if the service record of the petitioner is such as has been stated by the learned counsel for the respondent, there was nothing on which the Committee should have considered the candidature of the petitioner. However, the order of this Court was not complied with in its letter and spirit.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. K.P. Upadhyay stated that petitioner still has a remedy to challenge the adverse entries given to him but contempt is not the remedy available to the petitioner.
8. Since these adverse entries were not communicated to the petitioner which fact is admitted to the learned counsel for the respondent, petitioner still has a cause of action for challenging these entries before a writ court. But no contempt is made out.
9. Contempt petition is hereby dismissed. Notice discharged.
ML
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)
31.12.2013