O.P. Garg, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel.
(2.) The petitioner--Manglesh Singh, was initially appointed as Clerk on ad hoc basis on 16.7.1991 in the pay scale of Rs. 1,200-2,040 in the establishment of Judge, Family Court. Allahabad. Subsequently by Order, dated 1.9,1992. the petitioner was reverted to the post of Copyist in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1.500. This order was challenged by the petitioner by means of a writ petition which was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. The petitioner made a representation which was rejected by Hon'ble Inspecting Judge of this Court on 12.3.1997. Against this order) the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 13299 of 1997. This writ petition was finally allowed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Katju on 21.5.1997. It was observed that in the light of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Hussain Sasansaheb Kaladqi v. State of Maharashtra, 1987 (55) FLR 304, the petitioner who was appointed on a higher scale directly, could not be reverted to a lower pay scale. The impugned orders, dated 1.9.1992 and 12.3.1997 were quashed. This order is now the subject-matter of special appeal. No stay order has been granted in the special appeal. The order dated 21.5.1997 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13299 of 1997 still in operation. The petitioner reported to join his duties but he was not allowed to Join by the respondent No. 1, Judge, Family Court. Allahabad. Consequently, the petitioner has moved an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act being Contempt Petition No. 6 of 1998. In which a notice has been issued to Sri Surendra Pratap Mishra, Judge, Family Court, Allahabad., respondent No. 2. and he has been directed to comply with the order dated 21.5.1997 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13299 of 1997 by 16.2.1998. What Sri Surendra Pratap Mishra. respondent No. 2 has done is that he has dispensed with the services of the petitioner on 12.1.1998 treating him to be an ad hoc employee. No formal order of termination appears to have been served on the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application on 16.1.1998 before the Judge, Family Court, Allahabad, a copy of which is contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition on which an endorsement has been made by Sri Brij Bhushan Pandey, Munsarim of the Family Court. Allahabad, intimating the petitioner that the petitioner has already been informed on 12.1.1998 that his services are to stand terminated w.e.f. 13.1.1998 and. therefore, there is no justification to take work from the petitioner.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that it is now clear, though no order has been served on the petitioner, that the services of the petitioner have been terminated w.e.f. 13.1.1998 without serving any notice on the petitioner.;