Rajendra Kumar Arora vs Amarjeet Singh Maherda And Ors

The present contempt petition has been preferred by the petitioner, inter alia, alleging non-compliance of order dated 15.11.2016, operative portion

whereof reads thus:

“In the meanwhile and until further orders, status quo as it exists today shall be maintained pursuant to the order dated 07.10.2016 (Annex./7) qua

the petitioner.â€​

The petitioner has averred that though the petitioner was not relieved, the respondents have not obeyed the order and restrained the petitioner from

joining the duties.

It is not in dispute that after service of the notice of present contempt petition, the petitioner was permitted to join at Bikaner on 13.1.2018.

During the present proceedings, some orders have been passed by this Court more particularly on 10.1.2018 and 17.2.2018 and it was observed that

the petitioner is required to be paid due salary for the period interregnum. Having observed so, the matter was kept pending to decide as to who should

pay the salary to the petitioner for the period he was not allowed to join.

Having heard rival parties at substantial length on 24.1.2020, considering the stand of the respondents that petitioner was already relieved on

17.10.2016, this Court required the present incumbent in the Office of Executive Engineer, Central Workshop Division, IGNP, Bikaner to remain

present before the Court with the relevant record.

Today Mr. Arvind Aggarwal, Executive Engineer is present before the Court with the original dispatch register, delivery book/peon book and

register containing postal receipts.

From a perusal of the original record, this Court finds that the relieving order dated 17.10.2016, which has been enclosed with reply, has been sent

to all the endorcees, including the petitioner. The entries at S.No.234 to 239 of the dispatch register have been perused by me, which clearly reveal

that the relieving order dated 17.10.2016 was dispatched/sent to the petitioner also on the same date.

This Court has also perused the original delivery book/peon book, which contains an entry on 17.10.2016, showing that the relieving order no.239

was offered to Mr. Rajendra Kumar Arora (petitioner), who had refused to receive the same.

This Court has perused the original register of postage stamps maintained by the respondents, which shows that after the petitioner had refused to

receive, the relieving order was sent by post (on 13.11.2016).

In view of the aforesaid, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioner â€" a work charged employee working as Crane Operator was

relieved on 17.10.2016.

The fact that the order could not be served upon him and/or he refused to take the same, does not amount to willful disobedience of the order

dated 15.11.2016, which required the status quo as it existed to be maintained.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that so far as the receipt dated 13.11.2016 in the register of postage and stamps, is concerned,

they are of little avail inasmuch as by that time this Court had already ordered to maintain status-quo; is also factually incorrect as the interim order in

petitioner’s case came to be passed on 15.11.2016, before that the respondents having failed to serve the relieving order had sent the same vide

registered post on 13.11.2016.

The respondents have taken a stand that since the relieving order was issued and sought to be served upon the petitioner on 17.10.2016, the

petitioner stood relieved.

In the backdrop of the facts noticed hereinabove, in the opinion of this Court, the respondents were justified in not permitting the petitioner to join

the duties, as this Court had required them to maintain status-quo as it existed on 15.11.2016 and on such date, since the petitioner stood relieved, the

respondents cannot be held guilty of contempt.

There is no non-compliance much less, willful non-compliance of the interim order dated 15.11.2016 passed by this Court.

Mr. Saluja’s argument that the petitioner was having charge as the keys of Crane and log book were with him cannot be countenanced

inasmuch as if such argument is accepted, no employee or officer of the Organization would ever be treated to be relieved and the relieving would

depend upon the mercy of the concerned transferred employee.

As an upshot of the discussion aforesaid, this Court does not find it to be a case of willful non-compliance. The contempt petition is thus,

dismissed. Notices are hereby discharged.

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall be free to take up his cause for salary and/or moving the authorities for getting the leave sanctioned

for the period between 15.11.2016 and 16.1.2018, in accordance with law. Petitioner will also be free to move appropriate amendment application in

the writ petition, for such cause.