ROOP SINGH PAIKRA Vs. MUKESH KUMAR BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed this contempt petition stating that respondent No. 3 has willfully and deliberately disobeyed the order dtd. 6/11/2019 passed in Writ Appeal No. 496 of 2019 and thereby committed contempt of the lawful authority of the Court.

(2.) Shri Animesh Verma, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that order of transfer of petitioner/applicant was put to challenge in writ petition which came to be dismissed. Against the order passed in writ petition, petitioner/applicant preferred Writ Appeal No. 496 of 2019 which was disposed of vide order dtd. 6/11/2019. While disposing writ appeal, the Court granted interim protection of "status quo" in favour of appellant/applicant considering that vide order dtd. 25/10/2019, petitioner was assigned work of 'Nodal Officer' of the 'Gram Panchayat Vikas Yojna'. After passing of the order in writ appeal, respondent No. 3 wrote letter on 11/11/2019 (Annexure C-2) requesting the Collector to depute the new incumbent in place of applicant. The respondent No. 3, by writing letter to Collector, committed contempt of the order dtd. 6/11/2019 passed in writ appeal. He also contended that applicant was deputed for election duty by order dtd. 3/1/2020 (Annexure C-4) of the Collector even after receiving letter dtd. 11/11/2019 (Annexure C-2). Referring to orders dtd. 25/10/2019 and 3/1/2020, he submits that on the date of passing of order in writ appeal, applicant was holding the post and working as Rural Horticulture Extension Officer at Block - Bastanar. Learned counsel for the applicant also contended that in spite of the order of "status quo" dtd. 6/11/2019 passed in writ appeal, respondent No. 3 bent upon not to permit him to work. When the applicant was not permitted to work on the earlier place of posting, he tried to join at the transferred place of posting.

(3.) Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would submit that the submission of learned counsel for the applicant, that on the date of passing of order of "status quo" in writ appeal, applicant was still working on the earlier post is not correct. Referring to order dtd. 16/9/2019 (Annexure R-3/3) he would submit that the applicant was relieved on 16/9/2019 from Block - Bastanar, District - Bastar for joining in the office of Assistant Director, Raigarh. The order of transfer of the applicant was dtd. 23/8/2019. In place of applicant, another employee was transferred i.e. Shivnarayan Choubey. He joined on 11/9/2019. As the new incumbent has joined his services on the transferred place at Bastar, applicant was relieved on 16/9/2019. He submits that the order passed in writ appeal is only to the effect that "status quo" as on that date shall be continued till the grievance projected in the representation is considered and finalized. As the applicant had already been relieved on 16/9/2019, respondent No. 3 has only brought to the notice of the Collector, District - Bastar that by virtue of order of transfer of applicant, the new incumbent has already joined and, therefore, the new incumbent be deputed with the additional work. The opinion sought from higher authority is only because the applicant projected the order of "status quo" to be the order of stay of transfer. He submits that as the applicant was already relieved earlier to the passing of order by High Court, there is no willful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court.