MANZOOR AHMAD LALOO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners filed a writ petition No. 390 of 1984 which was allowed and it was declared that they are entitled to be paid same scale of pay and salary which was paid to the Carpet Training officers for the period for which they had functioned as Carpet Training officers at Varian Training Centers with direction that their pay should be accordingly determined and paid vide judgment of this court dated 25th July, 1986. Being aggrieved with the judgment the respondent filed LPA No. 28 of 1986 which was dismissed by this court vide order dated 27th Oct. 1986.

(2.) AFTER the dismissal of the LPA filed by the Union of India and Anr, the petitioners approached the Assistant Director, Handicrafts for implementation of the order and payment of the dues and were told by him that he had received a communication from the contemnor present in the Court with direction not to implement the judgment of this court. A copy of the communication of the condemner has been filed with the petition as annexure -C. The said communication is alleged to be contemptuous and amounting to interference with the administration of justice by refusing to implement the direction of the court given against the Union of India of whose employee the contemnor is. The contemnor has allegedly deliberately interfered with the course of justice in delaying the implementation of the order of this court passed about ten months back.

(3.) AFTER being satisfied of the existence of a prima -facie case a notice was issued to the respondent to show cause as to why the contempt proceedings be not initiated against him With a direction to him to personally appear in the court on a date to be fixed by the Dy. Registrar of this court, vide court order dated 19. 12. 1986. Mr, A. M. Mir the learned Central Government Standing counsel appeared in the case on 27,2. S987 and was given four weeks time for the compliance of the court order or showing the cause as to why the contempt proceedings he not initiated against the respondent No. 2. However on 19. 4. 1987 neither the respondent nor his counsel appeared in the court. Ev3n on 15 4 1987 neither, the respondents nor his counsel appeared where after a fresh direction was given to him to appear in the court and show cause as to why he should not be punished for the contempt of this court . Today the respondent has appeared along with his counsel and filed objections in the contempt petition.