RAMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA Vs. J R CHAUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant case is a unique example of arrogance and belligerency of contemner, who though heads, the Government Industrial Training Institute, did not consider it necessary or atleast desirable, to apply his mind as to what may be the sanctity of the order passed by this Court. The factual matrix of this reveals that the applicant was appointed as an instructor with effect from 1-6-1989, in the Ratio and Television Section of theGovernment Industrial Training Institute, Rasra, Ballia (hereinafter called the institute). Though, the appointment was made on daily wages but in order to deprive the applicant from the benefits of the continuity of service, the opposite parties gave artificial breaks in the services of the applicant. The services of the applicant had been terminated and he had been reappointed time and again. Being aggrieved of the last termination order dated 19-4-1991, the applicant challenged the same by filling the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13902 of 1991. This Court vide its order dated 2/05/1991, passed the following interim order :-

(2.) Opposite party No. 1, Shri J. R. Chaudhari, the then principal of the said institute complied with the order dated 2-5-1991 and passed specific order on 13th May, 1991 in favouavour of the applicant. Opposite party No. 2, Sri Vijay Kumar Srivastava took over as principal of the said institute on 9/07/1993 and the said order of this Court was disobeyed willfully. It appears the record that the opposite party No. 3 wrote a letter to opposite party No. 2, Shri Vijay Kumar Srivastava on 6-11-1993, authorising the opposite party No. 2 to appoint the Instructors on daily wages, as deligation of such power was considered necessary by the opposite party No. 3 so that the institute may function smoothly. The opposite party No. 2 who, in unambiguous and crystal clear language had been clothed with the power to appoint the daily wagers, did not give employment to the applicant on daily wages on the pretext that he would do so only after receiving the approval of the opposite party No. 3. In order to circumvent the order of this Court dated 2-5-1991 and to make an employ to save his skin from the contempt proceedings, which the opposite party No. 2 could have anticipated, the opposite party No. 2 wrote a letter to opposite party No. 3 on 18-12-1993, (Annexure CA-3 to the counter affidavit) seeking the approval of opposite party No. 3 for the employment of the applicant in pursuance of the order of this Court. It is strange that in the last paragraph of the said letter, opposite party No. 2 himself had mentioned that vide letter No. 8190/T-1/0387/Sa-91 dated 6-11-1993, the opposite party No. 3 had empowered the opposite party No. 2 to make the appointment of daily wagers till the duly selected persons are appointed.

(3.) The applicant field the instant contempt petition and the opposite parties filed their counter affidavits. The only stand taken by the opposite party No. 2 in his counter affidavit is that the order of this Court could not be complied with as he could not secure the approval of the opposite party No. 3 for appointing the applicant. Learned Standing Counsel was confronted with fact situation as to what was the occasion for the opposite party No. 2 to write the said letter dated 18-12-1993 when the opposite party No. 3 had already authorised the opposite party No. 2 vide his letter dated 16-11-1993 to make the appointment of the daily wagers in general. Learned Standing Counsel could not give any satisfactory explanation whatsoever.