G.P.Mathur, J. - (1.) THE present contempt petition has been filed on the ground that the order passed by this Court on 16th July, 1990, in writ petition No. 12057 of 1990 had not been complied with by the opposite parties. According to the case of the petitioner he was appointed as Assistant Clerk in the Social Forestry Department, Fatehpur, on 1 -1 -1988 on Rs. 20/ - per day. He worked continuously but on 6th April, 1990, O.P. No. 1 did not permit him to enter the office for performance of his duty. Thereafter the petitioner filed writ petition No. 12057 of 1990 in this Court on 4 -5 -1990 in which the following interim order was passed on 16th July, 1990; .... Until further orders the respondents are restrained from interfering with the working of the petitioner as a clerk on daily wages. However it is made clear that the petitioner will be entitled to get his emoluments for the period during which he did work. He will be entitled to get his salary from the date he resumes work under this order. It is alleged that the petitioner produced a certified copy of the interim order before O.P. No. 1 on 23rd July, 1990, and ultimately on 8th August, 1990, he was directed to join at Amauli Range, Jahanabad in the District of Fatehpur, and the petitioner joined his duties at Amauli Range on 9th August, 1990. The case of the petitioner further is that he was not allowed to sign the attendance register in which connection he made certain applications. The petitioner has been working continuously but his wages had not been paid to him and thus the opposite parties have committed contempt of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition wherein it was directed that he would be entitled to his salary.
(2.) NOTICE of the contempt petition was issued to the opposite parties on 14th February, 1991, and both Shri Ajay Sahgal, Divisional Forest Officer, O.P. No. 1, and Shri S.P. Srivastava, Forest Range Officer, O.P. No. 2, have filed counter -affidavits. It is contended by Learned Counsel for the petitioner that although the petitioner went to the office of O.P. No. 1 and served a certified copy of the interim order dated 16th July, 1990, on him on 23rd July, 1990, but he was not given any work or duty nor was he permitted to sign the attendance register. It is also contended that even after the petitioner was permitted to join duty at Amauli Range on 9th August, 1990, and has been working there continuously, the opposite parties have not paid him his wages. Shri Ajay Sahgal, Divisional Forest Officer, social Forestry, Fatehpur, O.P. No. 1, has stated in his counter affidavit that the petitioner was not appointed as Asstt. Clerk on regular basis but was allowed to work on daily wages as per the requirement of the work on Rs. 20 per day with a clear direction that he would get wages only for the period he actually worked. He has denied that the petitioner remained present or sitting in his office on 23rd July, 1990. On the contrary it is asserted that the petitioner was orally directed to go and work in the Forest Range Office, Amauli Range, Jahanabad. A formal letter in this regard was issued by him on 26th July, 1990 which sent to the petitioner by registered post but the said letter was returned unserved by the postal department. The order directing him to work at Amauli Range was then again sent to the petitioner on 8th August, 1990, at two addresses. Ultimately the petitioner reported for duty at Amauli Range on 9th August, 1990, and he was assigned duty. Since the was no work for the petitioner in the office of O.P. No. 1 at Fatehpur he was asked to report for duty at Amauli Range which is 70 kms. from Fatehpur. It is further stated by O.P. No. 1 in his counter -affidavit that the petitioner had been offered wages for the period for which he actually worked but he himself refused to accept the same as he wanted wages even for those days on which he had not performed any duty. It is averred in para. 18 of the Counter -affidavit that the petitioner worked for four days in August 90, 10 days in September 90, 11 days in October 90, 11 days in November 90, Six days in December 90, and 16th days in January 91 and 3 days in February. The dates on which the petitioner worked from August 90 to 7th February 91, have also been mentioned. In para 19 of the Counter -affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was continuously absent from 8th February, 91 onwards and he has not attended office even on a single day thereafter. In reply to paras 18 and 19 of the Counter -affidavit the petitioner has stated in para 15 of the rejoinder affidavit that it was wrong that the opposite parties offered wages to the petitioner for the period during which he worked and that instead of paying him full wages he was being paid only for few days. Opposite party No. 1 has given complete details of the days including' the dates on which the petitioner had worked from August, 1990 to 7th February, 1991. The petitioner has not controverted the allegations made in the Counter -affidavit by mentioning the dates on which he had worked. He has merely stated that the contents of para 18 are not correct and hence denied. In case the stand taken by O.P. No. 1 was not correct the petitioner could have clearly mentioned the dates on which he claimed to, have worked. The denial of the clear and categorical statement in the Counter -affidavit is absolutely vague in the rejoinder -affidavit.
(3.) SHRI S.P. Srivastava, Forest Range Officer, Amauli Range, O.P. No. 2, has also filed a detailed Counter -affidavit. He has stated that there is do post of clerk in the office of the Amauli Range office and as the petitioner was working on daily wages no attendance register was maintained. In para 14 of the counter -affidavit he has mentioned the precise dates on which the petitioner worked between August, 1990 and 7th February, 1991, and he has also stated that after 7th February, 1991, the petitioner was absent from office and had done no work. In para 19 of the Counter -affidavit he has stated that no attendance register of daily -wages workers is maintained and their attendance is recorded on muster roll. The averments made in para 14 of the Counter -affidavit have been denied in the same vague fashion by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit as mentioned earlier. He did not give precise dates on which he claimed to have worked. One thing which is very important in this connection is that Shri S.P. Srivastava, Forest Range Officer, Amauli Range had sent a letter to the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Fatehpur, on 3rd December, 1990, informing him that the petitioner had worked for four days in August 1990, 9 days in September 90, 11 days in October 1990, and 11 days in November, 90. In this letter it is further stated that the petitioner did not at all know the work of a clerk which required maintenance of registers, preparation of estimates, account work etc. He has further mentioned in his letter that the petitioner was not interested in learning any work and whenever he was asked to come and learn work he never paid any attention to the same. It is also mentioned that the petitioner was working as an agent of Peerless Insurance Co. and used to attend the forest range office occasionally with the object of getting wages of the whole month. A Copy of this letter has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure 8 -A to the contempt petition. This letter was sent by O.P. No. 2 on 3rd December, 1990, long before the contempt application had been filed by the petitioner in this Court, on 14th February, 1991. Since this letter is of a date prior to the filing of the contempt petition and has been filed' by the petitioner himself there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the same. It, therefore, appears that the petitioner has not worked in the Forest office at Amauli Range continuously from 9th August, 1990 onwards and his claim for wages for the entire period is not correct.;