Sadhu Singh Chauhan Vs. Dr. B.M.L. Tiwari and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - 4. after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant at length, i am not satisfied that any case for action under contempt of courts act is made out.ordern.l. ganguly, j.1. the petitioner was transferred by general order dated 28-6-90 from obra distt., sonbehadra to bangermau. distt, unnao in government degree college. the petitioner preferred a writ petition against the order of transfer. an interim order was passed by this court dated 22-8-90 which read as under:'the interim order dated 28-6-96 (annexure-1) to the writ petition no. 17504 of 1990 viaji narain singh v. dy. director of education shall remain stayed so far as it relates to the petitioner alone.'after the order was passed by this court, the petitioner states that he filed the certified copy of the order of the high court before the respondents and an endorsement of receipt was made thereon by the office. he personally met the opposite party no. 2 at several occasion requesting him to pass order for payment of salary to the petitioner. the present application for action under the contempt of courts act has been initiated by the applicant solely on the ground that since there was an interim stay order in the writ petition and the opposite party has not passed any orders directing payment of salary to him, the opposite party be convicted and sentenced for contempt of high court's order. the applicant filed a supplementary affidavit today in the court by which he annexed the copy of the application addressed to the director of education (higher) u. p. allahabad dated 23-8-90 by which it was requested that the high court was pleased to stay the operation of the order dated,28-6-90. it was requested that the high court's order be complied with.2. the grievances of the petitioner are that although there was in interim stay order in the writ petition staying the transfer order, the respondents have not paid the salary, thus they be punished for contempt of high court's order.3. i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, i am afraid that the submissions advanced by the learned counsel has no force. the high court's order do not say that the petitioner be paid salary, simply the transfer order was stayed. it is not always that all consequential and anxillary orders be inferred and carried out by the opposite parties. the opposite parties cannot be presumed to do something which is not specifically directed or stated in the order. it is now a developing tendency amongst the government servants and servants of various other departments, who try to avoid the compliance of transfer orders and remain at the place where they were posted, after obtaining some interim order, they remain at the station without working for months and years together, still claim to be entitled for payment of salary. this developing tendency is not proper nor can be encouraged. if a person chooses not to work, no direction specially in a contempt proceedings be issued for payment of salary to such erring person. such person may seek such appropriate remedy as may be advised according to law. such actions taken for contempt is wholly misconceived and in fact is abuse of process of court.4. after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant at length, i am not satisfied that any case for action under contempt of courts act is made out. the application for contempt is liable to be rejected.5. the application is rejected. no orders as to cost.

Judgment:
ORDER

N.L. Ganguly, J.

1. The petitioner was transferred by general order dated 28-6-90 from Obra Distt., Sonbehadra to Bangermau. Distt, Unnao in Government Degree College. The petitioner preferred a writ petition against the order of transfer. An interim order was passed by this Court dated 22-8-90 which read as under:

'The interim order dated 28-6-96 (Annexure-1) to the writ petition No. 17504 of 1990 Viaji Narain Singh v. Dy. Director of Education shall remain stayed so far as it relates to the petitioner alone.'

After the order was passed by this Court, the petitioner states that he filed the certified copy of the order of the High Court before the respondents and an endorsement of receipt was made thereon by the office. He personally met the opposite party No. 2 at several occasion requesting him to pass order for payment of salary to the petitioner. The present application for action under the Contempt of Courts Act has been initiated by the applicant solely on the ground that since there was an interim stay order in the writ petition and the opposite party has not passed any orders directing payment of salary to him, the opposite party be convicted and sentenced for contempt of High Court's order. The applicant filed a supplementary affidavit today in the court by which he annexed the copy of the application addressed to the Director of Education (Higher) U. P. Allahabad dated 23-8-90 by which it was requested that the High Court was pleased to stay the operation of the order dated,28-6-90. It was requested that the High Court's order be complied with.

2. The grievances of the petitioner are that although there was in interim stay order in the writ petition staying the transfer order, the respondents have not paid the salary, thus they be punished for contempt of High Court's order.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length, I am afraid that the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel has no force. The High Court's order do not say that the petitioner be paid salary, simply the transfer order was stayed. It is not always that all consequential and anxillary orders be inferred and carried out by the opposite parties. The opposite parties cannot be presumed to do something which is not specifically directed or stated in the order. It is now a developing tendency amongst the Government servants and servants of various other departments, who try to avoid the compliance of transfer orders and remain at the place where they were posted, after obtaining some interim order, they remain at the station without working for months and years together, still claim to be entitled for payment of salary. This developing tendency is not proper nor can be encouraged. If a person chooses not to work, no direction specially in a contempt proceedings be issued for payment of salary to such erring person. Such person may seek such appropriate remedy as may be advised according to law. Such actions taken for contempt is wholly misconceived and in fact is abuse of process of Court.

4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the applicant at length, I am not satisfied that any case for action under Contempt of Courts Act is made out. The application for contempt is liable to be rejected.

5. The application is rejected. No orders as to cost.