AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O. P. Jain, J.—Sri S. N. Dubey, learned Counsel is present for the petitioner and Sri B. P. Agarwal is present on behalf of the respondents.
This is an application under Contempt of Courts Act for the alleged disobedience of an order passed by this Court on 161294. A copy of the order is Annexure1 to the contempt petition and the relevant portion reads as under:
"Until further orders the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue in service and pay salary to him provided no order of termination or suspension has been passed in writing and served upon the petitioner."
It is an admitted fact that applicant Govind Prasad was a daily wage worker. He was appointed as Tax Collector on 151293 vide C.A. 1 which is an order passed by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court was that his services were terminated by an oral order and in view of that grievance the order was passed.
The respondents have filed a counteraffidavit and have annexed C.A. 7 which is an order of termination of the services of the applicant. The order has been passed by the Executive Officer on the directions of the District Magistrate. The order passed by the District Magistrate is Annexure C.A. 6, therefore the condition laid down by this Court has been satisfied. This Court ordered that unless there is an order of termination or suspension the applicant will be allowed to work. When it is found that there was an order of termination the matter ends so far as the contempt case is concerned.
It was argued on behalf of the applicant that C.A. 7 has been antedated and it was not in existence when the order dated 16th Dec., 1994 was passed by this Court. It is difficult to believe that the Executive Officer, District Magistrate and all other concerned officials colluded with each other to bring this order into existance.
It was also argued that there was no proper service on the applicant. Below Annexure 7 there is an endorsement that on the refusal of the applicant to accept the order it was pasted on the door of his house. It is argued that this service was resorted to without taking recourse to publication in Newspaper or by service through postoffice. It is also argued that there is no valid reason for the termination. It is pointed out on behalf of the respondents that Sri Prem Singh Verma was to retire w.e.f. 31194 and the applicant was appointed in his place on 151293 when there did not exist any vacancy.
It is not necessary for this Bench to examine the validity of the appointment or dismissal. It is sufficient to say that there is an order terminating the applicant services and therefore no disobedience of order dated 161294 is established.
The contempt application is therefore dismissed with Rs. 1,000/ as costs. The notices issuedto the respondents are discharged.