Contempt Itself Was Not Tenable As Directions Were Complied With: Supreme Court Sets Aside Contempt Case Against NOIDA

The Supreme Court while rejecting a contempt claim has observed that claims for regularization of services were not rejected by NOIDA solely on the ground that employment was for intermittent work through a contractor.

The Court was considering a Contempt Petition against an order passed by the single judge of the Allahabad High Court wherein it observed that the orders passed by Committee constituted by NOIDA was in contempt of its earlier order.

The division bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran observed, "It could thus be clearly seen that the respondents’ claim was not rejected solely on the ground that they were employed through a contractor but was rejected after a thorough consideration of several other grounds......We find that the contempt itself was not tenable, in as much as the directions issued in order dated 04.02.2020 had been complied with. If the respondents were aggrieved by the reasoning given by the appellant in orders dated 17.08.2021, 18.08.2021 and 19.08.2021, then, at the most, it could have given rise to fresh cause of action for challenging the said orders."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate-on-Record Sourav Roy while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Ayush Choudhary.

Facts of the Case

In pursuance to the Representations made by the Respondents, drivers engaged by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the NOIDA rejected their claims for regularization of services. The Respondents then filed a writ petition for quashing of the said order and further praying for regularization of their services.

The single judge of the High Court found that the rejection of the Respondents’ claim solely on the ground that they were employed for intermittent work through a contractor was not sustainable and the order was issued, without proper application of mind and as such was not sustainable. The CEO was also directed to consider the claim of the Respondents afresh for regularization keeping in view the observations made by the High Court and in light of the qualifying conditions of the Government Order or conditions prevailing in 2016 as on the date of submission of their representations, which were earlier rejected.

The Court further clearly directed that insofar as other qualifying conditions under the Government Order/Regularization Rules such as cut-off date, qualification etc., were concerned, the same would have to be considered by the competent authority i.e. the CEO, NOIDA while considering the facts of individual case of each respondent herein.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that the High Court had directed the consideration of each of the Respondents’ claim independently and the only rider was that their claims should not be rejected solely on the ground that they were contract labourers hired through a Registered Contractor/Supplier/Service Provider.

Stressing that it could clearly be seen that the Respondents’ claim was not rejected solely on the ground that they were employed through a contractor but was rejected after a thorough consideration of several other grounds and therefore the CEO orders were in compliance with the directions issued under the HIgh Court's order.

The Appeal was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Ritu Maheshwari vs. Ramesh Chandra Nagar And Others

Appearances:

Petition- Advocate-on-Record Sourav Roy

Respondent- Ayush Choudhary, Advocate-on-Record Gautam Awasthi, Advocate-on-Record Shishir Pinaki

Click here to read/ download Order