(Dipak Misra and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
Ram Chandra _____________________________________ Petitioner
v.
P.K. Asgani & Ors. _______________________________ Respondent(s)
Contempt Petition (C) No. 308 of 2016 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5057 of 2014, decided on January 11, 2017
With
Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 309/2016 In SLP(C) No. 4470/2014 Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 310/2016 In SLP(C) No. 4802/2014 Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 311/2016 In SLP(C) No. 16137/2014 Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 312/2016 In SLP(C) No. 16139/2014 Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 313/2016 In SLP(C) No. 16142/2014 Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 861/2016 In SLP(C) No. 3542/2015 Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 860/2016 In SLP(C) No. 3540/2015
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The petitioners have filed these contempt petitions alleging that there is violation of the following order dated 07.09.2015 passed by this Court in S.L.P (C) No. 5057 of 2014 which reads as follows:—
“It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it has decided to take the respondents-workmen on daily wage basis as per the office order dated 07.04.2015 and list contained therein. Needless to say, the names of the respondents-workmen are included in the list contained in office order dated 07.04.2015 which has been filed before this Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as the names of the respondents-workmen are included in the list as per the aforesaid office order, they have no grievance.
Recording such concession, the special leave petitions stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”
2. In the course of hearing we have been apprised that the name of respondents-workmen have already been included in the seniority list. In view of the aforesaid, the proceedings for contempt are dropped and contempt petitions stand disposed of.
3. We are sure the competent authority of the State shall maintain the sanctity of the list and do the needful.
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 308/2016 In SLP(C) No. 5057/2014
Ram Chandra ______________________________________ Petitioner
v.
P.K. Asgani & Ors ______________________________ Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T. and permission to intervene by the applicant above-named and office report)
WITH
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 309/2016 In SLP (C) No. 4470/2014
(With Office Report)
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 310/2016 In SLP (C) No. 4802/2014
(With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and Office Report)
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 311/2016 In SLP(C) No. 16137/2014
(With Office Report)
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 312/2016 In SLP(C) No. 16139/2014
(With Office Report)
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 313/2016 In SLP(C) No. 16142/2014
(With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and Office Report)
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 861/2016 In SLP(C) No. 3542/2015
(With Office Report)
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 860/2016 In SLP(C) No. 3540/2015
(With Office Report)
Date: 11/01/2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
(Before Dipak Misra and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, Adv.
Mr. Pramod Tewari, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Tewari, Adv.
Mr. Varinder Kr. Sharma, Adv.
Mr. P.K. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Neeraj Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Binay Kumar Das, Adv.
Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Kr. Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Pradeep Kr. Dwivedi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ratnakar Das, Sr. Adv.
Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, Adv.
Dr. I.P. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aviral Saxena, Adv.
Mr. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
4. The contempt petitions are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
———
