R. S Dhaon, J. - (1.) THIS is a matter in which stay order of the Court of 18 May 1989 is in issue. The contention in the contempt petition is that the stay order has not been complied with by the opposite parties and thus they having breached the conditions of the stay order they have committed contempt.
(2.) THE stay order is in reference to the pending writ petition No. 8282 of 1989 : Fit. Lt. H. B. Mishra v. Union of India. Many of the issues in the writ petition are not the subject matter of these proceedings. Suffice it to say that on 25 April 1989 the petitioner was required to explain certain charges against him. THE same day an order terminating his services was passed. It was followed by a formal order on 26 April 1989 which was served on the petitioner. THEse are matters of record in writ petition. Upon this is based the writ petition itself in which the first order which was passed was by a Bench of Hon'bie J. N. Dubey and Hon'bie R. R. Misra, JJ. THE petition was admitted on this date with an interim order. In effect, the stay order was that opposite parties were given directions that the order terminating his services were stayed. This order was passed on May 18, 1989. Apparently, there were efforts to have the order modified on May 18, 1989. THE order which was modified by Hon'bie K. C. Agarwal, J. as he then was, is reproduced below ;- "To me it appears that the interest of justice would be secured if the stay order dated 1-5-1989 is vacated and is substituted by directing the respondent no. 4 (herein the opposite party no. 1 in this petition) to pay past salary for the month of April 1989 within 15 days from today and go on paying the amount to which the petitioner would have been entitled otherwise in case termination had not taken place, by 10th of each succeeding month. THE amount will include city compensatory allowance and other usual allowances. THE petitioner will also not be evicted from the premises which he is occupying at the present. H?wever, if Flight (Lieutenant) Lt. H. B. Misra leaves the station, Central Air Command (CAC) Bamrauli, Allahabad, at any time he will have to send prior intimation to the respondent no. 4* THE petitioner is directed not to visit the office in the uniform which he got as Flight Lieutenant. Sri D. P. Singh has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents nos. 1 and 4. For filing counter affidavit on behalf of others he is given three weeks time. THE petitioner will have time till 15 July 1989 for filing rejoinder affidavit". This order has become the subject matter of these coptempt proceedings. Spl't up the order works like this :- (1) the order of May 1, 1989 staying the termination of the services of the petitioner was substituted and modified (2) there was a direction to the opposite party no. 1 (in writ petition respondent no. 4) (3) the direction was to pay salary for the month of April, 1989 within 15 days (4) directon to pay to the petitioner emoluments to which he would be entitled, otherwise as if termination had not taken place, by 10th of each succeeding month (5) the amount was to include city compensatory allowance and other allowances (6) that there would be no eviction of the petitioner from the premises occupied by him. The other conditions of this order were on the petitioner and against him that (a) he was virtually stripped off his uniform by direction that be would not visit the office in uniform and (b) not leave station without intimation to the Officer Commanding. The sum total of this order works out to this that in so far as the emoluments of the petitioner were concerned they were to remain and paid as if he had not been terminated. The petitioner's uniform had been hung by the Court and was not to be used if he was going to the office. He was not to leave station without permission. These conditions are clear and writ large in the order of 18 May 1989. Apparently there was much friction between the opposite parties and the petitioner, but this court is not concerned with that.
(3.) REFERENCE the circumstances that when the petitioner started receiving his salary it was not the salary given to officers with same status and rank. The allowances also were put under variance. The direction for the payment salary and allowances were clear that they would be paid as if the services of the petitioner had not been terminated. With this direction to the opposite parties, upon an order modified at their instance, the stay order is modified rested. But, the parties continue to be at logger heads. The terms of the order even after modification were embrassed by the opposite parties, when under its terms the peiitioner was to take off his uniform and not to visit office in uniform implying that elsewhere he could. He could remain at his residence and receive his play and allowances. The order of 18 May 1989 should have been implemented as straight as it came and upon which modification was sought by the opposite parties. What exactly were the implications of the modified order. The earlier order was of 1-5-1989. It was simply staying the termination order of 25 April 1989. The modified order vacated the earlier order of 1--5-1989. The implication was that the officer-functions of the petitioner ceased The rest of his service conditions remained. He was to have his salary and allowances as if the order of termination has not been passed; protection from eviction from the accommodation provided There should not have been any issue on keeping the terms of the modified order. The order was clear. The \\r Force administration had wanted the petitioner out of administration and had agreed to pay his emoluments and allowances as if the order of termination had not been passed provided he sits at home. This is exactly what the opposite parties had wanted, and, thus, got what they had desired. Otherwise why was the modification sought 7 The earlier stay order was vacated to be substituted by the one passed on 18 May 1989. There was much belligerence in presenting the merits of the case between the parties. The defence is already on record in counter affidavits by parties to whom notice had been issued. There was much reference to the record of the writ petition in arguments on both sides. Rather than permit this belligerence to continue on how the record of the writ petition lies, the Court, thus, considered it appropriate to have the record of the writ petition before it, as these contempt proceedings do arise out of writ proceedings. ;