Disobeying an interim order passed by the court is contempt of court and is punishable.

1. U. C. Srivastava, J. The petitioner how was an employee of U. P. Pharmacy Counsil filed this contempt petition under the Contempt of Court Act for punishing the opposite party, Radhey Shyam Khanna, the President of U. P. Pharmacy Council, Lucknow for deliberately disobeying the interim order, dated 10-5-82 passed by this Court by which the order terminating the services of the petitioner was stayed and it was directed that the petitioner shall not be treated as having been relieved from his post.

2. In the said termination order which was passed by the opposite-party it was provided that his services were no more required in U. P. Pharmacy Council and he was directed to submit joining report in U. P. Dental Council, Lucknow. The petitioner preferred the aforesaid writ petition in which he mentioned that his services were taken for some time by the U. P. Pharmacy Council on 1st August, 1980 and his services in the U. P. Pharmacy Council were temporary and were only for a particular purpose after which his services were no longer required. The petitioner's complaint is that despite service of order the opposite party did not obey the same and flouted it and he did not allow the petitioner to continue and treated him to have been relieved and even salary was not paid to him. Another order was passed by this Court on 7-8-87 and thereafter entire salary was paid to the petitioner.

The petitioner alleged that the interim order was duly communicated by him to the opposite-party by means of written application dated 12-5-82 along with the certified copy of the order which was received in his office on 30th May, 1982 and even then he did not treat him to be an employee of U. P. Pharmacy Council and thereafter treated him to be relieved and thereby disobeyed the order and dispite repeated requests salary was not paid to him. It was also alleged that he met the opposite-party in his Chambers on 24th June, 1982 and requested him to treat the petitioner to be an employee of U. P. Pharmacy Council and not to treat him to have been relieved, but the opposite-party refused to respect the order of this Court and stated that he would not be treated to be an employee of U. P. Pharmacy Council, and he was treated to be relieved on 30th August, 1982. In elaboration of his averments the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit on 3-9-82 in which it was stated that on 1-7-82 the salary of U. P. Pharmacy Council Staff was prepared in which his name was included, but the opposite-party struck off his name from the roll and refused to pay him salary. A copy of the bill showing that the name of the petitioner was struck-off was also filed and despite the orders passed by this Court he continued to treat him as having been relieved. The opposite-party further directed the Headquarter to consider the petitioner as having been relieved till the legal advice was not received. In the counter-affidavit which was filed to the writ petition out of which this contempt petition arises, the opposite-party stated the following words : "hence there is no question of his being allowed to work in the Pharmacy Council on 30th May, 1982 as he could not have been permanently transferred in this illegal manner. "

3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite-party on 7th April, 1983 certain averments made by the petitioner in his affidavit were not controverted. In the counter-affidavit he stated that from the office he learnt that after obtaining interim order passed by this Court the petitioner was exploiting the order and was not attending the office and with reference to the petitioner's supplementary affidavit it was stated thereon that in the interim order passed by this Court there was no direction for payment of salary and that is why the petitioner moved separate applications before this Court and the salary was subsequently paid. It was denied that the petitioner met him in his Chamber. It was further stated that he had no Chamber of this own an