STATE OF U P Vs. NATH VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant Sri Prafful Kumar. None appears for the respondents. Perused the record. The writ petition preferred by the private respondents challenging the order of termination of service and claiming regularization, was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 10th November 1991 by which the appellants were directed to to continue the services of the respondents and to pay them salary/wages accordingly until their services are dispensed with in accordance with law. The appellants were further directed to consider their cases for regularization of their services and dispose of the same according to law at an early date. It appears that allegedly the orders passed by the learned Single Judge was not complied with, therefore, a contempt petition was filed. In the contempt petition, the grievance raised was that the respondents though have been allowed to join but they have not been allowed to join at the Head- quarters. In contempt petition, under the fear of the contempt, the respondents were allowed to join at the Head-quarters and on this information being given, the learned Contempt Judge has disposed of the application accordingly vide order dated 21st December 1993. It was against this order passed in contempt petition, the instant special appeal has been filed. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the impugned order under challenge is passed by the Contempt Judge and it was not an order or direction passed in the writ petition in original jurisdiction. His further submission is that the only direction passed in the writ petition was to allow the respondents to continue the service and to pay them salary/wages accordingly until their services are dispensed with in accordance with law as also to consider their regularization of services with no direction that they should be necessarily posted at the Head-quarters. That being so, the appellants were appointed in service but under the fear of contempt they have to appoint and post them at the Head-quarters. Submission is that the learned Contempt Judge had no jurisdiction to issue any such direction nor the appellants could have been compelled to pass such direction with respect to posting of the respondents. We find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. In the absence of any such direction having been passed by this Court in the writ petition, in contempt petition, no such direction can be issued nor the appellants could have been required to post the respondents at the Head- quarters. We, therefore, allow the special appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Contempt Judge dated 21.12.1993. However, since the respondents have been allowed to join at the Head-quarters and they are supposed to be working there, this order passed by us would not effect their posting, if they are working on the said post and they would be allowed to continue in service subject to disciplinary and administrative control of the authority concerned. The special appeal is allowed.