Procedural compliance in contempt petitions is essential; absence of required affidavits and specificity renders petitions non-maintainable.

1. Heard on IA No. 1/2007, application for taking additional affidavit on record.
Not opposed.
The application is allowed. The affidavit is taken on record.
Also heard on preliminary objection to the maintainability of the contempt petition and objections to the framing of charges.'

2. The petitioners have filed this contempt petition under Art.215 of the Constitution of India read with S.12 to 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for willful violation of the ex parte order dated 19th of October, 2005 passed in W.P. No. 4943/2005.

3. Grounds of the petition are that the petitioners were appointed as daily wagers on the post of peon, chowkidar and clerk in Madhya Pradesh Adivasi and Vitt Vikas Nigam (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'M.P. Nigam') in the year 1995-96. After reorganization of the State of Madhya Pradesh, Vitta and Vikas Nigam was not continued in the State of Chhattisgarh and in its place, Chhattisgarh Rajya Antyavyasayee Sahkari Avam Vikas Nigam Maryadit (C. G. Nigam) was constituted and services of the employees who opted for Chhattisgarh has been allocated/transferred to the State of Chhattisgarh and they are working under the control of C. G. Nigam. The C. G. Nigam took a decision in the month of September, 2004 to the effect that the services of the petitioners will be terminated after completion of the contract period. The petitioners along with other persons aggrieved by the decision of the C.G. Nigam, filed W.P. No. 4943/2005 and this Court vide order dated 19th October, 2005 directed that "status quo in relation to the services of the petitioners, as it obtains today, shall be maintained by the parties till the next date of hearing" (Annexure P1). The petitioners were on service as on 19th October, 2005. They were signing the attendance register up to the month of January, 2007. However, their services were discontinued and the C. G. Nigam stopped paying salary after getting copy of the order passed by this Court. The petitioners have not been paid salary from October, 1995 onwards despite they submitted copy of the order dated 19-10-2005 passed by this Court.

4. The Collector Rajnandgaon vide his letter dated 29-7-2006 (Annexure P3) requested the Managing Director for compliance of the order of this Court. The petitioners also submitted their representation Annexure P4 dated 10-10-2006 to the respondents. The Chief Executive Officer, Kabirdham with the approval of the Collector vide his letter dated 21-12-2006 (Annexure P5) requested the respondent No. 3 to comply with the order passed by the High Court, however, the respondents have not cared to the above request/representation and refused to comply with the order of this Court.

5. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their joint reply dated 10-3-2007 and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in their joint reply dated 11-3-2007 have taken identical stand that C. G. Nigam has been constituted at the state level whereas at the district level, a society in the name of District Antyavyasayi Sahkari Vikas Samiti Maryadit has been registered. The district society is registered under the G. G. Cooperative Societies Act. The petitioner were working in the M. P. Nigam, which has not been constituted in the State of Chhattisgarh. Services of the regular employees working in the M. P. Nigam were allocated to the C. G. Nigam, however services of the petitioners who were contract appointees were never allocated either to the C. G. Nigam or to the district society. Their services were not continued after the time of contract i.e. 5th August 2005 after issuance of order dated 5th August, 2005, the petitioner continued till August, 2005 and the appointments of the petitioners have come to an end after 5th August, 2005 and thereafter, neither they worked nor have been paid salary. After retention and continuance of the service of the allocated employees, a separate da