- (1.) THIS is a contempt petition under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The complaint is that there is a violation of the order dated 19-8-1992 passed by a Division Bench of his Court in writ petition No. 14364 of 1992 (Smt. Abha Rani Gupta v. State of U. P., and others by which the writ petition was finally disposed of with certain directions. The relevant part of that order is reproduced below :- "In the interest of justice we direct the opposite party no. 3 to dispose of the said representation (27-6-92) within one month from the date of filing a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the representation already filed before him. In case the Chief Development Officer rejects the representation, he will give a speaking order."
(2.) TO appreciate the background and the circumstances in which the aforesaid directions came to be made, it is necessary to set out few facts. The applicant Smt. Abha Rani Gupta hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner 2) was appointed in December, 1978 at the post of Gram Vikas Adhikari. The appointment letter, it is stated, was issued by Zila Vikas Adhikari, Banda. Subsequently, it appears that the petitioner was transferred to District Allahabad in the year 1982 and in due course, she was posted as Gram Vikas Adhikari at Block Shankergarh, Allahabad, vide appointment letter dated 11-2-1992. The case of the petitioner is that she received another order No. 3965 dated 13-5-1992 by which she was directed to report in the office of opposite party no. 4 but she was not permitted to join there nor was she allowed to put her signature on the attendance register. It is alleged that the petitioner gave an application dated 18 -5-1992 in the office of opposite party no. 3 to the effect that she was not being permitted to make her signatures and directions be issued to opposite party no. 4 to strictly comply with the directions given in the letter dated 11-2 1992. A number of other communications are referred to in the Contempt Petition which are said to have been addressed to the opposite parties, by the petitioner. However, as the petitioner was not being paid her due salary, she made a representation dated 27-6-1992. It is In this background that this Court gave the directions for disposal of the representation filed by the petitioner by order dated 19-8-1992. Out of the four persons arrayed as opposite parties in this petition, by an order dated 23-1-1993 notice was issued against opposite party no. 3, only, namely. Smt. Radhe Chauhan, Chief Development Officer, Allahabad. The charge against her is that despite production of a certified copy of the order dated 19-8-1992 the representation of the petitioner had not been decided and accordingly, she is guilty of having wilfully flouted the order passed by this Court for which she is liable to be punished. In the defence filed by opposite party no. 3 in the form of counter affidavit, the charge of violating the order of this Court has been denied. Various factual allegations set out in the Contempt petition pertaining to the posting of the petitioner at Shankergarh etc. have also been controverted and the assertions in the counter affidavit are at variance from those contained In the Contempt petition. According to the counter affidavit the petitioner was transferred from Shankergarh by order dated 22-5-1992 but she did not abide by that order. She was again transferred from Shankergarh to Manda but that order also remained uncomplied The petitioner has not been attending her duties since after May, 1992 and, therefore, she was not entitled to any salary for the period subsequent to 21-5-1992. However, she had been paid her salary up to that date. As the controversy in this petition is limited to the question whether the concerned opposite party had carried out the directions contained in the order dated 19-8 1992 or not, or otherwise whether she is liable to any action for contempt, it is not necessary to go into further details, allegations and counter allegations concerning the transfer and alleged absence of the petitioner from her duties.
(3.) THE defence taken in paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit is that the order of this Court dated 19- 8-1992 has since been complied with pending these proceedings and the representation of the petitioner dated 27-6-1992 stands decided by an order dated 2-2-1993 by this Chief Development Officer. Allahabad a copy of which has been filed as Annexure CA-7 to the counter affidavit. An explanation for the delay in carrying out the directions of this Court has also been furnished to which a reference shall be made hereinafter. We are not concerned in these proceedings with the merits of the decision taken in the order dated 2-2-1993 by which the representation was decided. Suffice it to say that by the said order the representation was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of this Court has not been complied with in terms. The represention has been rejected without passing a speaking order and this is clear violation of the directions contained in the order dated 19-8-1992. Secondly, the representation had not been decided within the period of one month of production of a certified copy of the order of this Court. Consequently, the learned counsel contends, that the contemner cannot be exonerated from the charge of contempt asserted in this petition.;