CHANDRAVEER SINGH Vs. M B MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the decision of learned single Judge of this Court unless something more is done in respect of non-compliance of an interim order which may amount to contempt or not, a reference was made by one of us (U.C. Srivastava, J.) to the Chief Justice for referring the matter to the larger Bench in order to decide whether there was recurring effect of interim order in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. This matter came before us in view of the fact that one of the (U.C. Srivastava, J.) referred the matter for constituting a Division Bench for giving an authoritative pronouncement regarding the effect of interim order passed by this Court in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution of India and its contempt in view of anomaly of certain decisions which are not in conformity with each other or could be said to be confined to the facts of that case only.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the contempt application are that in writ petition filed by the petitioner an interim order was passed by this Court against the termination order dated 4-6-1987. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 9-7-1987 stayed the operation of impugned order of termination. Notwithstanding the fact the effect of operation of termination order was stayed, the opposite party who was the Chief Personnel Manager, Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., Mankapur, district Gonda neither allowed the petitioner to discharge his duties nor paid his salary and no action whatsoever was taken. In the counter-affidavit the opposite party has contended that this Court did not pass any order that he may be put back on duty or that salary may he paid to him treating him to be an employee of the opposite party and as such it cannot be said that there has been any disobedience or contempt of court in absence of specific direction to take work from him.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the effect of interim order passed by this Court in the writ petition staying the operation of the termination order means that it ceased to be in existence during the subsistence of interim order and it became incumbent upon the opposite party to treat him in service as before and take work from him and in any case it was to pay him salary as was paid to him regularly earlier or was being paid to other employees. The opposite party (according to the applicant) has deliberately flouted the orders passed by this Court in not allowing him to do work or even to pay salary to him and his deliberateness is apparent from the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite party.