MAHESH KUMAR Vs. SATYA PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Contempt Petition bearing No. 394/10 has been filed for alleged noncompliance of the order dated 06-04-2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 5745/07 (S), Contempt Petition bearing No. 389/10 has been filed for alleged noncompliance of the order dated 06-04-2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 1775/08(S) and Contempt Petition bearing No. 390/10 has been filed for alleged non-compliance of the order dated 06-04-2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 1896/08(S). As the applicants in all the three cases is same and non-applicants are also same and in the three different cases of termination of applicant, orders were quashed and the compliance has to be made by the non-applicants of the three orders of this Court and the facts are also similar in all the three cases, therefore, it is being decided by a common order. For the convenience, the facts are being referred from Contempt Petition No. 394/10. 2-This petition under Section 12 and 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated 06.04.2010, passed in Writ Petition No. 5745/2007 (s) whereby this Court has issued following directions: -

(2.) In the present case non-applicants have filed the return stating the fact that the writ appeal was pending, which was decided on 01.12.2011 affirming the order of learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition, in the said circumstances order could not be complied with till then. On dismissal of writ appeal the compliance report has been submitted on 23.4.2012 attaching the order dated 16th March, 2012 reinstating and posting the applicant at Balaghat without back wages. In the compliance report in paragraph-1 it is said that the non-applicants are tendering an unconditional apology before this Court, if it appears that any contempt is made out arising out of order dated 06.04.2010. In view of the foregoing it is urged that the proceeding so initiated for contempt may be dropped

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of Writ Petition No. 49/04(S), Writ Petition No. 5745/07(S), Writ Petition No. 1775/08(S) and Writ Petition No. 1896/08(S), Writ Appeal No. 490/10, Writ Appeal No. 456/10 and Writ Appeal No. 457/10, it is apparent that applicant is a person, who was first terminated vide order dated 22-12-2003 against which a writ petition no. 49/2004 was filed wherein as per the order dated 12.04.2007 the order of termination was quashed with the liberty to non-applicants to hold a regular departmental enquiry. In furtherance to the said order applicant was not reinstated, however, he has filed a contempt petition no. 354/2007, which is also listed today, but it has been disposed of due to passing the subsequent orders of termination which were challenged and quashed by the order dated 06-04-2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 5745/07(S), Writ Petition No. 1775/08(S) and Writ Petition No. (sic) (S). Alleging non-compliance of the said orders passed in writ petitions, present Contempt Petition and two other Contempt Petition Nos. 389/10 and 390/10 have been filed which are heard analogously.