Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Sri Rameh Pandey , learned counsel for applicant also submits that in pursuance of order passed by writ court, applicant has already performed his duties on the higher post as such he is entitled for salary on the said post so action on the part of respondent thereby not paying salary to his clear violation of order passed by writ court liable to be punished/ Sri S.P. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent in rebuttal submits that although order dated 1.12.2009 passed after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as leaned Standing Counsel but writ court granted four week time to file counter affidavit thereafter petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit and also notices were issued to opposite parties no. 4 and 5 in the writ petition and as a matter of fact on record counter affidavit has been filed alongwith application for vacation of the interim order in Writ Petition No. 7750 (S/S) of 2009 pending consideration so the hearing of the contempt petition be deferred till application for vacation of interim relief moved by official respondents is not disposed of by the writ court.

In view of the above said fact , the first and foremost question which is to be decided in the present case is that if ex parte interim order is granted in favour of the applicant/ petitioner by writ court although after hearing the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State/official respondents time granted to file counter affidavit. Subsequently, counter affidavit has been filed alongwith application for vacation of interim order and the said matter is pending for adjudication before the writ court then in that circumstances the contempt petition is maintainable or not; for alleged violation of the interim order passed by writ court in respect of payment of salary. Answer to the said question lies in the following judgments:-

Ultimately, in paragraph 23, it was concluded that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Mohd. Yaqoob Khan's cae , it was necessary for the learned single Judge to defer/postpone the contempt proceedings till the disposal of the Stay Vacation Application moved against the interim order."

Further, in Criminal Misc Case NO. 1841 (C ) of 2003 S.M. Sayeed Rizvi Vs. Sri R.K. Mittal, Principal Secretary Medical Health & Family Welfare U.P. Civil Secretariat , Lucknow and others vide judgment dated 10.1.2007 after placing reliance in the cases of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. Mohd. Yaqoob Khan & others (1992) 4 SCC 167 and Modern Food Industries( India) Ltd. & another Vs. Sachhidanand Dass and another, (1995) Sup. A4 SCC 465 this Court has held that if an application for vacation of stay order is pending for vacating the interim order , the contempt petition filed by the applicant under the Contempt of Courts Act for non compliance of interim order in respect to interim order is maintainable . It is further directed that the contempt petition is differed till disposal of the application for vocation of stay order in the writ petition.

Against which Special Appeal No. 424 of 2000 has been by official respondents alongwith application for interim relief pending disposal , contempt petition has been filed registered as Crl. Misc. Case no. 694 (C ) of 2005. After hearing Sri Ramesh Pandey learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Lalit Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on 13.12.2006 this Court passed the following orders:-

" Considering the facts and circumstances, I hereby defer the present contempt proceedings till the disposal of the special appeal and after disposal of the appeal it would be open for the learned counsels for the parties to move an application before this Court to proceed accordingly."