Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner is already working� on the promoted post under the orders of the Administrator. The matter requires consideration.
In the above circumstances, it is hereby provided that the vacancy in question shall not be filled up by the direct recruitment quota till the petitioner does not retire or any order is passed vacating the present interim order.� As soon as the petitioner retires, the opposite parties will be at liberty to fill up the post by direct requirement quota. The salary of the petitioner shall also be paid in accordance with the entitlement of Class III post."
This Court as well as the Supreme Court in a large number of cases have consistently held that the contempt proceeding should not be proceeded against an interim order. This Court is of the firm opinion that in the present case, the matter requires adjudication from the Writ Court and that the matter should be finally resolved before the salary is paid to the applicants, if any."

In the case of Ram Ashish Ram Vs. Security Officer(H.C.) ALR 1991(18) 24, this Court held as under :-

"In my opinion, the respondents could have legitimate hope that their application for vacating stay order shall be decided on an early date. It is well established that the matter of contempt is between the court and the contemnor. The petitioner has only to invite the attention of court to the facts and circumstances in which according to him, contempt has been committed. It is for the Court to consider whether its contempt has been actually committed or not. In my opinion, it shall be highly unjust on the part of the Court not to decide the prayer for vacating the stay order and to punish the respondents for committing the contempt. If without deciding the matter of stay vacation the respondents for committing are held to have committed contempt, it will not be equitable on the part of the Court. It is different matter that the prayer for vacating stay order may not have merit, but a party, against whom an interim order is passed, has a legal right to agitate against the same under Article 226(3) of the Constitution."
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.

In view of the above said facts, the submission made by Sri S.N. Tripathi, learned standing counsel for the respondents that at least an opportunity be given to defend the ex parte interim order in the main proceeding before the respondents are dragged before the contempt court and an application for vacation of stay order moved alongwith counter affidavit in th writ petition be considered and disposed of has got force rather the same is in accordance with law as mentioned above.

For the foregoing reasons, the proceeding of the present contempt petition is deferred till disposal of the application for vacation of interim order filed by the respondents alongwith counter affidavit in the Writ Petition No.7750 (S/S) of 2009 ( Bindheshwari Prasad Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. and others ).