Once An Order Is Passed By Court Employers Have To Accept The Same As It Is Even If It Is Liked Or Not Liked By Them: Supreme Court

The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Navarathna has also observed that the employers have to implement the order passed by the Court as they are.

"Before we pass any further order taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect, we adjourn the matter at the request of Shri K. M. Nataraj, learned ASG appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 for a period of two weeks so as to enable respondent no.2/respondents to take all corrective measures and to comply with our earlier judgment and order fully and truly. We caution respondent no.2 that while complying with the order passed by this Court there shall not be any feeling of revenge and he should act as a model employer and that there shall not be any bias in implementing the order passed by this Court. Once an order is passed by this Court or any other Court, the employers have to accept the same as it is even if it is liked or not liked by them. They have to implement the order passed by the Court as they are," the bench said in its order.

The directions were issued while the bench was considering a contempt petition preferred against the judgment dated November 13, 2021.

The Top Court on November 13, 2021 while upholding Uttarakhand High Court's judgment had directed the Himachal State Electricity Board Limited ("Board") for reverting the junior to the direct recruits since their promotions of Assistant Account Officers were canceled by the High Court. The High Court had also directed the Board to consider the direct recruit AAOs for promotion to the post of AOs from due dates from which persons junior to them in the cadre of AAOs were promoted.

In the judgement dated November 13, 2021, the Top Court had also directed for filling the vacant posts by the employees like the appellants who succeeded before the Top Court Court in the year 2015. Directions were also issued for refixing their seniority.

While hearing the contempt petition on April 20, the bench noted that though the judgment and order was passed by this Court on 13.11.2021 but all the appellants were reverted within a period of approximately 4-5 months and that too after the contempt proceedings were initiated before this Court.

Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the respondents had filed a compliance report in which it was stated that the judgment and order passed by this Court of which the non-compliance is alleged has been fully complied with. Since the same was disputed by the contempt petitioners, the mater was adjourned wherein the Court had asked the respondents to file a further counter tendering unconditional apology and to see to it that the judgment and order passed by this Court of which the contempt is alleged is fully and truly complied with.

In the further affidavit filed wherein the respondents had tendered an unconditional apology, the Executive Director, HPSEB LTD, Vidyut Bhavan, Shimla had undertaken undertakes to take all such steps to fully comply with the judgment of this Hon'ble Court and all other directions passed by this Hon'ble Court.

Noting the submissions, the bench said in their order said, "Meaning thereby, as on today, the respondents have not fully and truly complied with the judgment of this Court and such directions passed by this Court. In para 4, it is requested to grant some further time to the respondents to thoroughly examine and verify the record and the relevant Rules in the context of the judgment of this Court, meaning thereby, before filing the earlier two affidavits in which they have stated that they have fully complied with the judgment and order dated 13.11.2021, respondent no.2 did not examine and verify the record and the relevant Rules, thereby respondent no.2 misled this Court and made incorrect statement before this Court and that too on Oath twice."

Appearing for the Executive Director, ASG KM Nataraj submitted that six persons were promoted earlier who were reverted and all those posts were required to be filled in from and amongst the applicants and other similarly situated employees. It was also pointed out that similarly out of three posts of Deputy Chief Auditor, only two posts have been filled in and one post was lying vacant. ASG had further pointed out that even the respective petitioners were not paid the consequential/monetary benefits which they are entitled to pursuant to the earlier orders passed by this Court. Against this backdrop, he sought two weeks to comply with the Top Court's judgment in full spirit.

Acceding to the request made by ASG, the bench adjourned the matter for May 10, 2022 and asked the Executive Director to remain personally present before the Top Court.

"We direct that the present order be placed before the Managing Director and Chairman of the HP State Electricity Board for perusal so that they should know what is happening in their establishment," Court also said.

Case Title: Arjun Singh & Ors v RD Dhiman & Ors| Diary Number 3911/2022