DILIP KUMAR VERMA Vs. BIJAY KUMAR MAHARANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed under the Contempt of Court's Act, 1971 for alleged willful disobedience of an order dated 13th April, 2011 passed in the writ application. Let the affidavit of compliance filed by the alleged contemnor be kept on record.

(2.) It is submitted by Mr. Achin Kumar Majumder, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that during the pendency of this application the order of suspension was revoked and the petitioner was transferring from the post which he had been holding previously by an order dated 4th July, 2011 passed by the alleged contemnor. It is further submitted by him that the salary for the period from the date of the order passed in the writ application till the date of revoking the above order of suspension in compliance of the order passed in the writ application is yet to be released. According to him the reasons assigned in the order dated 4th July, 2011 for his transfer from his previous posting amounts to willful disobedience of the order. It is also submitted by him that raising of further allegations against the petitioner by virtue of the above order are not sustainable in law. According to Mr. Majumder, the alleged contemnor passed the above order without any authority or jurisdiction.

(3.) On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. P.S. Basu, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the alleged contemnor with Mr. Mintu Kumar Goswami, learned advocate, that no period was specified in the order passed in writ application for revoking the order of suspension. That apart, the respondent authority preferred an appeal against the order passed in the writ application. The appeal bearing MAT No. 693 of 2011 was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 16th June, 2011. According to him, the preferring of the above appeal was the reason for some delay in complying with the order passed in the writ application. It is also submitted by him that the salary for the period from the date of joining of the petitioner in his transferred post has been released. According to him, there was no direction for releasing the salary of the petitioner from the date of passing the order of the writ application. With regard to two other grounds for filing this application, it is submitted by Mr. Basu that those may be considered as fresh causes of action for the petitioner.