RAM NIWAS Vs. RAM AVTAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant alleged that he was appointed on a substantive vacancy w.e.f. 16.10.1989 as a Collection Peon. The appointment letter indicated that he was being appointed against the vacancy occuring on the retirement of a collection peon and that his services were to continue till such time a regular appointment was made by a Selection Committee. The applicant alleged that on account of the displeasure of the Tehsildar, the impugned order of termination dated 25.10.1991 was issued without any authority by the Tehsildar and without giving any opportunity of hearing. Since the Tehsildar had no authority to issue the order of termination, consequently, the applicant filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court in which an interim order dated 13.1.1992 was passed staying the operation of the impugned termination order dated 25.1.1991, It is alleged that inspite of the issuance of the interim order, the opposite parties neither allowed the applicant to join his duties nor paid his salary. Consequently, the applicant filed the present contempt application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging willful disobedience by the opposite parties in not complying with the interim order passed by the Court in the writ petition. Notices were issued and, the opposite parties filed their counter affidavits justifying their action in not reinstating the applicant, by relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association, CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras JT 1992(3) SC 98, contending that since there was no specific direction in the interim order to reinstate the applicant, consequently the opposite parties did not reinstate the applicant nor the opposite parties have willfully flouted the interim order of this Court.

(2.) Heard Sri V.K. Solanki, the learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri Nurul Huda, the learned standing counsel for the opposite parties.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the opposite patties submitted that since there was no specific direction permitting the applicant to continue in service nor was there any specific direction for reinstatement, consequently, the opposite parties did not allow the applicant to continue in the service and, therefore, the opposite parties have not willfully flouted the orders of the Writ Court. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties further submitted that a counter affidavit has also been filed in the writ petition and, therefore, the contempt proceedings should now be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the writ petition. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties have placed various judgments which shall be referred hereinafter.