- (1.) O. P. Jain, J. Sri S. N. Dubey, learned Counsel is present for the petitioner and Sri B. P. Agarwal is present on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) THIS is an application under Con tempt of Courts Act for the alleged dis obedience of an order passed by this Court on 16-12-94. A copy of the order is An-nexure-1 to the contempt petition and the relevant portion reads as under: "until further orders the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue in service and pay salary to him provided no order of termination or suspension has been passed in writing and served upon the petitioner. " It is an admitted fact that applicant Govind Prasad was a daily wage worker. He was appointed as Tax Collector on 15-12-93 vide C. A.-1 which is an order passed by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court was that his services were terminated by an oral order and in view of that grievance the order was passed. The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit and have annexed C. A. 7 which is an order of termination of the services of the applicant. The order has been passed by the Executive Officer on the directions of the District Magistrate. The order passed by the District Magistrate is Annexure C. A. 6, therefore the condition laid down by this Court has been satisfied. This Court ordered that unless there is an order of termination or suspension the applicant will be allowed to work. When it is found that there was an order of termination the matter ends so far as the contempt case is concerned.
(3.) IT was argued on behalf of the ap plicant that C. A. 7 has been ante-dated and it was not in existence when the order dated 16th Dec. , 1994 was passed by this Court. IT is difficult to believe that the Executive Officer, District Magistrate and all other concerned officials colluded with each other to bring this order into existance. It was also argued that there was no proper service on the applicant. Below Annexure 7 there is an endorsement that on the refusal of the applicant to accept the order it was pasted on the door of his house. It is argued that this service was resorted to without taking recourse to publication in Newspaper or by service through post-office. It is also argued that there is no valid reason for the termina tion. It is pointed out on behalf of the respondents that Sri Prem Singh Verma was to retire w. e. f. 31-1-94 and the ap plicant was appointed in his place on 15-12-93 when there did not exist any vacancy.;