Chief Secy faces contempt charges for defying panel's orders

More than two decades after the Shetty Commission mandated that 15 per cent of government quarters in the general pool be earmarked for subordinate court staff, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has framed contempt charges against Haryana’s Chief Secretary for wilfully violating orders in the matter.

"It is apparent that a consorted effort was being made on behalf of respondent so as to cause interference towards implementation or orders passed by the writ court… As such, prima facie, a case for initiation of contempt proceedings is made out against respondent-Chief Secretary, Haryana,” Justice Harkesh Manuja asserted.

Referring to the persistent non-compliance, the court noted that the commission’s recommendations came into force on April 1, 2003, but even after 22 years, the needful was yet to be done.

“A perusal of record shows that a specific and categorical recommendation was made by the Shetty Commission on March 31, 2003, which came into force on April 1, 2003, whereby, 15 per cent of the government quarters in the general pool were exclusively directed to be earmarked for Court staff and was required to be placed at the disposal of the Principal District & Sessions Judge or the senior-most Judicial Officer at the place for making allotment to the employees. A period of more than 22 years has gone by, yet, the needful has not been done…,” the court asserted.

Justice Manuja also took exception to two notifications issued in 2022, which rechristened “general pool houses” as “state headquarter pool”. The court made it clear that it appeared to be a blatant attempt on the respondents’ part to circumvent the directions as well as the orders passed by the writ court, “rendering the respondents liable to be proceeded under the provisions of Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971”.

The Bench was hearing a petition filed by Rajesh Chawla through counsel SPS Bhullar and Arshdeep Singh Bhullar. The alleged disobedience pertained to a direction issued by the writ court on September 7, 2011, in Haryana Judicial Employees Association versus the State of Haryana, and to the binding decision of the Supreme Court dated October 7, 2009, which mandated the high courts to ensure implementation of the commission's recommendations from April 1, 2003.

Accordingly, the court framed contempt charges and directed that the Chief Secretary remain present in court on the next date of hearing, fixed for May 26.