KULDIP NARAIN LAL Vs. MAHENDRA PAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P. N. Goel, J. This is an application under Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act. The undisputed facts, sufficient for the disposal of this case, are these: By order dated 22. 2. 1980, the District Magistrate, Ballia, appointed applicant Kuldip Narain Lal as Officiating Collection Amin. This order was communicated to him by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. When by order dated 21. 6. 1981, he was made Seassonal Collection Amin. The applicant challenged the order dated 21. 6. 1981 by filing an application before the Services Tribunal, Lucknow dated 8. 7. 1981. The applicant moved an application for an interim order to the effect that the order dated 21. 6. 1981 should not be given effect to and that the operation of this order be stayed. On 19. 9. 1981 after hearing parties counsel, the Tri bunal passed order reading: "parties are present. The Opposite Parties has no objection to the grant of status-quo as on today. Fix 12. 10. 1981 for hearing of the stating matter. Till then status-quo as on today shall be maintained. . . " The above order was confirmed/made absolute on 21. 10. 1981. The grievance of the applicant is that on 7. 11. 1981 the District Magis trate (O. P. No. 1) issued a letter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rasra that the applicant is working in the capacity of a seasonal Amin and that his services be deemed effective on the basis of the stay order dated 19. 9. 1981 and 31. 10. 1981 as Seassonal Collection Amin and that his services be terminated like other Seassonal Collection Amins after 30. 9. 1981 (Vide para 10 of the application) and as such disobeyed the orders of the Public Services Tribunal. In Para 13 the applicant further stated that the order 7. 11. 1981 had not been given effect to and that the applicant was not receiving his salary regularly. The contempt petition was filed on 8. 12. 1981. The opposite party No. 1 filed counter affidavit stating that he had not committed any disobedience of the orders of the Tribunal and that in pursu ance of the order dated 21. 6. 1981, the applicant worked from 1. 7. 1981 as Seassonal Collection Amin and drew Salary in the said capacity, that the ap plicant worked as Seassonal Collection Amin upto 30. 9. 1981, that after obtaining the sanction for appointment of Seassonal Collection Amins, the applicant was again offered appointment, but he did not join. The opposite party No. 2 filed another counter affidavit. He adopted the facts stated in the counter affidavit of Opposite Party No. 1. He added that the applicant was paid salary for the months of July and August, 1981 as Seassonal Collection Amin that one Shivanand was appointed Collection Amin and that in the month of September, 1981, the applicant proceeded on leave without any prior sanction and therefore he was not paid salary for the month of September 1981. The applicant filed rejoinder affidavit. In para 23 of this affidavit he stated that he received less salary in the months of July and August, 1981 and that therefore he moved an application before the Sub Divisional Officer asking him to indicate as to why his salary had been deducted and that the sub Divisional Officer had given no reply. In para 12 of this affidavit he stated that it was necessary to call the record of the applicant for perusal and that the record would show that his status was that of an officiating Collection Amin. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard at length. The Chief Standing Counsel raised 3 preliminary points. 1. The Services Tribunal is not a Court and as such this application for contempt of Court is not maintainable.

(2.) THE tribunal was not competent to pass an interim order.