MANOJ KUMAR DEVANGAN Vs. SUBRORO SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on I. A. No. 1/2007, application for taking additional affidavit on record. Not opposed. The application is allowed. The affidavit is taken on record. Also heard on preliminary objection to the maintainability of the contempt petition and objections to the framing of charges.

(2.) THE petitioners have filed this contempt petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 12 to 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for willful violation of the ex parte order dated 19th of October, 2005 passed in W. P. No. 4943/2005.

(3.) GROUNDS of the petition are that the petitioners were appointed as daily wagers on the post of peon, chowkidar and clerk in madhya Pradesh Adivasi and Vitt Vikas nigam (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'm. P. Nigam') in the year 1995-96. After reorganization of the State of Madhya Pradesh, vitta and Vikas Nigam was not continued in the State of Chhattisgarh and in its place, chhattisgarh Rajya Antyavyasayee Sahkari avam Vikas Nigam Maryadit (C. G. Nigam)was constituted and services of the employees who opted for Chhattisgarh has been allocated/transferred to the State of chhattisgarh and they are working under the control of C. G. Nigam. The C. G. Nigam took a decision in the month of September, 2004 to the effect that the services of the petitioners will be terminated after completion of the contract period. The petitioners along with other persons aggrieved by the decision of the C. G. Nigam, filed W. P. No. 4943/2005 and this Court vide order dated 19th October, 2005 directed that "status quo in relation to the services of the petitioners, as it obtains today, shall be maintained by the parties till the next date of hearing" (Annexure P-1 ). The petitioners were on service as on 19th October, 2005. They were signing the attendance register up to the month of January, 2007. However, their services were discontinued and the C. G. Nigam stopped paying salary after getting copy of the order passed by this Court. The petitioners have not been paid salary from October, 1995 onwards despite they submitted copy of the order dated 19-10-2005 passed by this Court.