PREM SHANKAR PANDEY Vs. JAG ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PREM Shankar Pandey, applicant, was appointed as a temporary clerk in Krishi Utapadan Mandi Samiti, Allahabad, in November, 1973. His services were terminated on 7th April, 1978. The termination order was challenged by him by filing claim petition No. 461(f)/3/78 before the U.P. Services Tribunal but the petition was dismissed on 29 -11 -1990. Thereafter he filed writ petition No. 33609 of 1990 in which the operation of the orders dated 7th April, 1978, and 29th November, 1990, were stayed by order dated 20th December, 1990 and 18th January 1991. The present contempt petition has been filed on the ground that though the Petitioner had served the certified copy of the stay order upon the Respondents on 22nd December and 28th December, 1990, but he has not been reinstated.

(2.) BOTH the Respondents have filed separate counter affidavits in response to the notices issued to them by this Court. The main plea of the Respondents is that the stay order was passed behind the back of the counsel for the Mandi Samiti and the Mandi Samiti had already moved an application supported with counter -affidavit for vacating the stay order and as two weeks, had elapsed since the filing of the stay vacating application, the stay order stood automatically vacated in view of Article 226(3) of the Constitution. It is also pleaded that the services of the Petitioner were terminated in 1978 and his claim petition was dismissed in 1990, thus he was out of employment for more than 12 years and, therefore, there was no occasion to take him back in service.

(3.) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered a similar controversy in R.M. Ramaul v. State of Himachal Pradesh : AIR 1991 SC 1171. In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court had given a direction on 2 -12 -1988 for restoration of the applicant's seniority in service over and above two other officers of the H.P. Tourism Development Corporation in an earlier appeal filed by the applicant. In compliance of the said direction the Corporation reviewed the promotion with effect from 28 -5 -1982 and granted promotion to the applicant but treated the promotion for the period from 28 -5 -1982 to 3 -9 -1986 as a mere notional promotion without any monetary benefits. In the contempt application filed later, on the ground of non compliance of the earlier order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows in para 2 of the report: