A party can be impleaded in contempt proceedings if their rights are affected and compliance issues arise during pending appeals.

JUDGMENT :

M V MURALIDARAN, J.

This application has been filed by the applicant seeking to implead him as respondent No. 3 in the Contempt Case (C) No 51 of 2021 filed for the non-compliance of the order dated 28.02.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1210 of 2018.

2. Heard Mr. Juno Rahman, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. B.P. Shau, learned senior counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner and also the respondents 2 and 3/contemnors.

3. Mr. Juno Rahman, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that challenging the promotion of the applicant to the post of Joint Director, SCERT, the first respondent filed the writ petition and by the order dated 28.02.2020, this Court allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred W.A.No. 18 of 2021 along with interim prayer for staying the order dated 28.2.2020. He would submit that the official respondents 2 and 3 have also preferred an appeal bearing W.A. No. 19 of 2021 against the very same order passed in the writ petition and in the said two appeals, the Division Bench of this Court ordered status quo to be maintained and the same is still in force.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant is still holding the post of Joint Director, SCERT and since the applicant was protected by the interim order of the Division Bench, he is necessary and proper party in the contempt proceedings filed by the first respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that after knowing the order directing the parties to maintain status quo as on 22.05.2020, the first respondent filed the contempt petition on 24.04.2021 and that the initiation of contempt proceedings for non-compliance during the pendency of the writ appeals is not proper and cannot stand in the eye of law. In support, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Modern Food Industries (Inda) Limited and another v Sachidanand Dass and another, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 465.

6. Per contra, Mr. BP Sahu, learned senior counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner submitted that the respondents 2 and 3 ought to have removed the applicant from the date of judgment i.e. 28.2.2020, as the same was held to be unconstitutional and the order to remove him was to be given effect to immediately. He would submit that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has passed an order to maintain status quo as on that date which was on 22.05.2020 i.e. after about three months, and on that date the applicant cannot be said to be holding the post of Joint Director, SCERT and in case, the applicant was allowed to hold the post, it is highly illegal and in gross violation of the order passed in the writ petition and, in any event, the official respondents/contemnors cannot take advantage of their own illegal act.

7. Learned senior counsel for the first respondent further submitted that a contempt case can only be filed against the contemnor, who has disobeyed the order of the Court and in the present case, since the respondents 2 and 3 are the primary contemnors and the contempt petition has been filed only against them, the applicant is not a necessary party In support, learned senior counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyabrata Biswas and others v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku and others , (1994) 2 SCC 266.

8. Heard the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

9. This Court considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused t