Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents -appellants learned Standing Counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
(2.) This special appeal is preferred challenging the correctness of the judgment and order dated 12.10.2006 passed by the Writ Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56848 of 2006 - Rajeev Ranjan v/s. State of U.P. & Ors. It is connected with Contempt Appeal No. 06 of 2005, Special Appeal No. 226 of 1995 and Writ Petition No. 56848 of 2006 as same question of facts and law are involved.
(3.) The order impugned passed in Writ Petition No. 56848 of 2006 read thus: "Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was appointed as Tax Inspector on 12.6.1993 but as his salary was not being paid by the Executive Officer inspite of the directions of the Chairman, he approached this Court through Writ Petition No. 34054. A counter affidavit was filed claiming that the appointment of the petitioner was forged and the author of the order did not have any jurisdiction. A learned Single Judge by a detailed and reasoned order allowed the writ petition vide order and judgment dated 6th February, 1995 holding that the appointment of the petitioner was valid and thus directed payment of his salary within eight weeks. However, as the said order was not complied by the Executive Officer, a Contempt Petition No. 2183 of 1997 was filed and when Sri Rajiv Ranjan Singh, the Executive Officer, inspite of the opportunity did not either reinstate the petitioner or released his salary, he was found guilty and sent to Jail vide order dated 29.4.2005. The Executive Officer filed Contempt Appeal No. 6 of 2005 and he was enlarged on bail but yet he did not comply with the order and thus the Appellant Bench vide order dated 3.8.2005 granted four weeks further time to comply with the writ judgment on the statement made on behalf of the Executive Officer. It is pleaded that even then the order has not been complied and the Executive Officer has taken strong umbrage of the two orders of this Court. To the contrary, his services were terminated on 26.11.2005 and the petitioner was again forced to file Writ Petition No. 24961 of 2006. It is pleaded that the record was summoned and the Executive Officer was directed to appear along with the record and when the Court observed with regard to some manipulations, the termination order was withdrawn and thus the writ petition was disposed off on 24.5.2006 without making any adverse remarks. Again, the services of the petitioner has been terminated by the impugned order. Serious allegations have been alleged against the two private respondents and the termination is based on same grounds which was raised in the first writ petition. On the aforesaid background, a case for interim order is made out. Meanwhile, the operation of the order dated 22.9.2006 shall remain stayed and the petitioner shall be paid his salary till the next date.";