JUDGMENT A.N. DIKSHITA, J. 1. THE instant application under section 12 of the contempt of court, 1971 has been filed by one Sri Ram Dhyan Ram Yadav against the State of U. P. through the Secretary, Irrigation Department, U. P. Lucknow, the Engineer-in-chief, Irrigation, U. P. Lucknow, Sri S. P. Mathur, Chief Engineer, Sone, Irrigation Department, Sigra, Varanasi, Sri Saifudujja, Superintending Engineer Irrigation works Circle, Sigra, Varanasi and Sri Lai Bahadur Singh, Executive Engineer, Irrigation works Circle, Chandra Prabha Division, Sigra, Varanasi. 2. THE facts encompassing the controversy, as disclosed in the petition, are that the applicant Ram Dhyan Ram Yadav was appointed as a Junior Engineer in Irrigation Department by Engineer-in-chief, U. P. Lucknow in the year 1977. Lateron, his appointment was approved by the U. P. Public Service Commission and in consequence thereof, he was confirmed to the said post in the department. A general order of transfer was passed by the opposite party no. 1 Engineer-in-chief and in the said order, transfer of one Junior Engineer, namely, Sri Ram Dhayan Ram Yadav was transferred by respondent no. 2 from Kanhar Nirman Mandal, Pipri to the Public Nalkoop Kand Kanpur. The opposite party no. 2 in pursuance of the said order directed the applicant Ram Dhayan Ram Yadav to the over charge in the Public Tube-well Circle, Kanpur. 3. IT is alleged by the applicant that in the aforesaid order of transfer dated 8-1-1985, the name of applicant does not find place though the name of one Junior Engineer Ram Dhan Yadav finds place at serial. 4. THE order dated 8-1-1985 passed by the opposite party no. 3 Chief Engineer was communicated to various authorities. It is further alleged that the opposite party no. 4 Superintending Engineer, Irrigation works circle, Sigra, Varanasi, arbitrarily, illegally and maliciously substituted the name of the applicant (Ram Dhyan Ram Yadav) in place Ram Dhan Ram Yadav, Junior Engineer. THE applicant on the basis of this order was relieved on 23-8-1985 and the charge was handed over. THE applicant was directed to join at Public Tube-well Circle, Kanpur in the same capacity. THE applicant on the basis of this order was relieved on 23-8-1985 and the charge was handed over. THE applicant was directed to join at Public Tube-well Circle, Kanpur in the same capacity. It is further alleged that on 1-9-1985 when the applicant went to join his duty at Kanpur, the Superintending Engineer, Public Tube-well Circle, Kanpur (Sri K. P. Singh) refused the applicant to join on the post on the grant that only Sri Ram Dhan Yadav is entitled to join the post the order passed by the opposite parties no. 2 and 3. Sri Singh further objected on the ground that the transfer relates to one Ram Dhan Ram Yadav, Junior Engineer Kanhar Nirman Mandal, Pipri while the applicant Ram Dhayn Kam Yadav is shown to belong to Irrigation Works Circle, Sigra, Varanasi. Any how, the Superintending Engineer Sri K. P. Singh did not allow the applicant to join on said post on the ground that his name is not Ram Dhan Yadav The applicant reported the refusal of the authorised application dated 25-9- 1985 praying for suitable or one applicant also moved an application on 4th of October, for the payment of his salary. Again the applicant sent application on 3-1-1986 to the concerned authorities payment of his salary but no action whatsoever was taken. 5. IN view of the representation of the applicant dated 25-9-1985 and 4-10-1985, the opposite party no. 3 sent a D.O. letter dated 6-11-1985 to opposite party no. 2 informing him about the irregularties committed in regard to the transfer of the applicant along with the recommendation that in view of the anomalies and confusion, it would be proper to transfer the applicant from Irrigation Works Circle, Varanasi to Drainage Circle, Azamgarh. However, inspite of his oral request and several applications in writing to the opposite parties no. 2 to 5, neither the applicant was allowed to work in the department nor was paid his salary w. e. f. 12-4-1985 up till date. 6. COMPELLING by the applicant filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 778 of 1986 (Ram Dhyan Ram Yadav v. State of U. P.). On 15-1-1986, three weeks time was granted to the standing counsel to file a counter affidavit. However, no counter affidavit was filed. 6. COMPELLING by the applicant filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 778 of 1986 (Ram Dhyan Ram Yadav v. State of U. P.). On 15-1-1986, three weeks time was granted to the standing counsel to file a counter affidavit. However, no counter affidavit was filed. After the expiry of the time case was listed for hearing on 20-2-1986 and on that date order was passed as under; 'Inspite of time being granted, no counter affidavit has been filed, we accordingly issue interim mandamus to respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 to pay arrears of salary to the plaintiff from 12-4-1985 or to show cause within a month from the date of receipt of a copy or this list after a month." Sd/ K. N. S. Sd/ A. N. D. 20-2-1986 7. IT is alleged that a certificate copy of the order 20-2-1986 was produced before the opposite parties no. 2 at Varanasi on 21-2-1986. Inspite of the service of the order dated 20-2-1986 on the opposite parties nos. 3, 4 and 5, no action was taken. Another application to the same effect was given by the applicant but .was refused by opposite parties nos. 3, 4 and 5. Another application dated 22-5-1986 was sent through registered post by the applicant but to no avail. IT is stated by the applicant that the opposite parties were aware about the order dated 20-2-1986. The opposite parties cancelled the transfer of the applicant to Kanpur vide order dated 21-5-1986 and the applicant was again transferred to Mirzapur. 8. IT is admitted to the applicant that he is being paid salary w. e. f. 3-6-1986. IT is also alleged in the application that the opposite parties are deliberately disobeying the order dated 20-2-1986 and are persistently flouting the same, for which, they are liable to be punished. The entire grievance of the applicant through this application is that the salary has not been paid in terms of the order of this court dated 20-2-1986. Significantly, on 13-3-3987 when this application under section 12 of the contempt of court Act, 1971 filed, this court directed the application to be list along with writ petition no. 778 of 1986 on 25-3-1987. On 26-3-1987 following order was passed: "The applicant is directed to file a supplementary affidavit about the receipt of the amount w. e. f. 12-4-1984 till 20-2-1986 within two weeks. 778 of 1986 on 25-3-1987. On 26-3-1987 following order was passed: "The applicant is directed to file a supplementary affidavit about the receipt of the amount w. e. f. 12-4-1984 till 20-2-1986 within two weeks. In supplementary affidavit shall also contain the details of the amount received towards salary w. e f. 12-4-1985 till date. List this case before me on 9-4-1987? 9. THE supplementary affidavit was not filed by the time fixed on 9-4- 1987 a prayer was made for three weeks time to file supplementary affidavit as directed on 26-3-1987. Supplementary affidavit was then filed on 14-8-1987. THE following order was passed: "Issue notice to the opposite parties fixing 7-9-1987 as to why they should not be punished for willfully, and willfully disobeying the order dated 20-2-1986. THE opposite parties are directed to be present in person on that date except opposite party no. 2 who may be present through his counsel." 10. THE notices issued to opposite parties nos. 1 to 3 were not received back after service by 4-9-1987. On 7-9-1987 the opposite parties nos. 4 and 5 were directed to be present in person while opposite parties nos. 1 to 3 were directed to appear through counsel. THE Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varahasi was directed to ensure service on opposite parties nos. 4 and 5. THE notices could not be sent again as is evident from the office report dated 29-10-1987 as the copies of the annexures, application and affidavit were not supplied by the learned counsel for the applicant. On 14-12-1987 a counter affidavit on behalf of opposite parties nos. 4 and 5 were filed. Before proceeding further with the case, it is made clear that it was only by order dated 14-8-1987 that the notices were issued to the opposite parties show cause by 7-9-1987 as to why they should not be put for willfully and deliberately disobeying the order dated 20-2-1986. 11. THE opposite party no. 5 Lai Bahadur Singh has filed the counter affidavit refuting the averments contained in the affidavit except the allegations in regard to the appointment on the transfer order. It has been specifically alleged that there is no Ram Dhan Ram Yadav in the Division and it is only Ram Dhyan Ram Yadav the applicant and it was only typographical error that 'Y' was not mentioned in the name Dhyan. It has been specifically alleged that there is no Ram Dhan Ram Yadav in the Division and it is only Ram Dhyan Ram Yadav the applicant and it was only typographical error that 'Y' was not mentioned in the name Dhyan. It has also been mentioned that the post on which, the applicant was working is a transferable one and except that typographical error in the name of Dhyan other particulars and details are correct. THE transfer order was served on the applicant in the month of January, 1985. However, he remained on casual leave or absent and it was only on 30-4-1985 he was treated relieved. Later on, the name was corrected vide order dated 20-12-1985 and he was directed to join at Kanpur on the protext or the other, he did not join and went on unauthorised leave w. e. f. 13th April, 1985. 12. THE salary up to 12-4-1985 had already been paid, leave from 13-4-1985 to 31-7-1985 was sanctioned on sympathetic, consideration by the authorities. However, the applicant remained absent in an unauthorised manner from 1-8-1985 to 2-8-1986. However, leave with pay was sanctioned for the said period. THE transfer of the applicant to Kanpur vide order dated 30-11-1984 was cancelled and the applicant joined this Division on 3-6-1986. Lateron another order was passed transferring the applicant from Irrigation Works Circle, Varanasi to Obra Dam Construction Circle Obra at Mirzapur on 30-6-1986. THE applicant was relieved on 4-7-1986. THE salary w. e. f. 3-6-1986 to 30-6-1986 has already been paid to the applicant. It has also been alleged that the applicant for certain motivative reasons was not inclined to join at Kanpur and wanted to remain at a station of his choice. It has been categorically stated that the order of this court dated 20-2-1986 was received by the opposite party no. 5 on 15-3-1986. However, this order did not contain the copy of the petition and the annexures annexed thereto. On the receipt of this order, an official was diputed to collect the copy of the writ petition from the office of the Chief Standing Counsel for compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court and also with a request to the Chief Standing counsel to obtain two months time for complying the order of the Hon'ble Court. On the receipt of this order, an official was diputed to collect the copy of the writ petition from the office of the Chief Standing Counsel for compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court and also with a request to the Chief Standing counsel to obtain two months time for complying the order of the Hon'ble Court. It has further been submitted that after the receipt of the copy of writ petition, a narrative was prepared by the office of the opposite party no. 5 and the same was sent along an official on 15-4-1986 to show cause notice (sic) the counter affidavit but on account of strike none was available and ultimately, it was sent under registered post vide receipt no. 4504/16-4-1986 to the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Later on, the office of the opposite party no. 5 received a letter dated 14-7-1986. 13. IT has been very specifically stated that the application cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the period of one year has already elapsed from the date of the order dated 20-2-1986, which was to be complied with by the opposite party no. 5. IT has also been submitted that the opposite party no. 5 has the highest regard for any order or direction of this court and he could never mean to disobey any such orders. Lastly, it has been submitted that if it is found that any laps has occured on the part of the opposite party no. 5, the same may be condoned. 14. ANOTHER affidavit on behalf of opposite party no. 5 was filed on 21-1-1988 besides reiterating the earlier averments, it has been alleged that the applicant absconded since 13-4-1985 to 2-6-1986 and tried to create mis-understanding between the opposite parties nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. The last pay certificate (L.P.C) was sent to Superintending Engineer, Obra Dam construction circle, Obra vide his office no. 2359 dated 26-7-1986. Even the revised L.P.C. had been sent to the concerned division (Executive Engineer Kanhar Nirman Khand-II Mirzapur) after settlement and payment of his leave i.e. 13-4-1985 to 31-7-1985 vide office letter no. 4037 dated 10-10-1987. The service book of the applicant was also sent to the Executive Engineer Kanhar Nirman Khand-2 Mirzapur. 2359 dated 26-7-1986. Even the revised L.P.C. had been sent to the concerned division (Executive Engineer Kanhar Nirman Khand-II Mirzapur) after settlement and payment of his leave i.e. 13-4-1985 to 31-7-1985 vide office letter no. 4037 dated 10-10-1987. The service book of the applicant was also sent to the Executive Engineer Kanhar Nirman Khand-2 Mirzapur. It has been submitted that w. e. f. 13-4-1985 to 31-7-1985 earned leave on sympathetic consideration has been sanctioned and duly paid to the applicant vide Bank Draft no. T-l/A/90/986865 dated 13-10-1987 for Ks. 3729 60. This draft was accepted by the applicant. However, for the said period of absence from Government duty w. e. f. 1-8- 1985 to 2-6-1986 leave without pay has been sanctioned. A rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit has been filed. The allegations as contained in the affidavit filed by the applicant in support of his application has been reiterated and that of the counter affidavit have been specifically denied. 15. A supplementary rejoinder affidavit has also been filed, in which, it has been alleged that now Rs. 19,000/- (Rupees nineteen thousand) is still outstanding to be paid to the applicant but that has not been done. A supplementary rejoinder affidavit to the supplementary counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 5. Another supplementary rejoinder affidavit was filed on 27-4-1988. It is borne out from the, perusal of the affidavit, counter affidavits and the rejoinder affidavit inclusive of the supplementary affidavit-I the parties are reiterating their respective standing. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length. 16. BEFORE proceeding to dispose of the application, it would be necessary to advert the writ petition no. 778 of 1986. This petition was filed with a prayer to issue writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents nos. 1 to 5 (the same respondents are opposite parties nos. 1 to 5 in the instant application) to pay the arrears of salary of the petitioner from i2th April, 1985 uptil date. It was further prayed that a direction in the nature of mandamus be issued to respondents nos. 2 to 5 to go on making monthly payment of the salary of the petitioner without any fail till the anomaly created in the transfer of the applicant is settled by the authorities concerned. It was further prayed that a direction in the nature of mandamus be issued to respondents nos. 2 to 5 to go on making monthly payment of the salary of the petitioner without any fail till the anomaly created in the transfer of the applicant is settled by the authorities concerned. On this, on 15-1-1986, learned standing counsel was granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit and the petition was directed to be listed thereafter. On 20-2-1986, when the petition was listed, no counter affidavit was filed and in the circumstances, the order dated 20-2-1986 was passed by Honourable Mr. Justice K. N. Singh and Honourable Mr. Justice A. N. Dikshita, JJ. The main grievance of the applicant is that in spite of the order of this court dated 20-2-1986, the opposite parties have failed to comply with the order and have willfully disobeyed the order and are thus liable to be punished within the clause of sub section 12 of the Act. 17. LEARNED counsel for the applicant Sri R. R. Yadav has very strenuously urged that the amount w. e. f. 12-4-1985 to the date, for which this petition was .filed has not been paid. In reply to this submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant Sri K. S. Shukla, Advocate appearing for the opposite parties have submitted that this amount has been paid though there had been some delay in the payment of the amount. However, for some amount leave was sanctioned and thus, it would be deemed that the amount for that period has already been paid. LEARNED counsel for the applicant has contended that the amount of Rs. 19,000/- is due and is not being paid. However, an explanation is forthcoming that on account of certain official hazard the amount could not be paid. It has also been stated by the opposite party no. 5, who is the disbursing officer, that he had no intention whatsoever not to pay the amount. It has also been shown that he had utmost respect and regard of the court. It is expected from a public servant that he would abide by law. 18. ANOTHER aspects of this case is that an application has been filed on 15-3-1987 when it was directed to be listed along with the record of the writ petition. It has also been shown that he had utmost respect and regard of the court. It is expected from a public servant that he would abide by law. 18. ANOTHER aspects of this case is that an application has been filed on 15-3-1987 when it was directed to be listed along with the record of the writ petition. On 26-3-1987 the applicant was directed to file supplementary affidavit about the receipt of the amount w. e. f. 12-4-1984 till 20-2-1986 within two weeks. The affidavit was also required to contain the details of the amount received towards salary w. e. f. 12-4-1985 uptil date. However, this was not done and it was only on 10-9-1987 when the supplementary affidavit was filed and on 14-8-1987 the opposite parties were issued notice to show cause as to why they should not be punished for willfully and deliberately disobeying the order dated 20-2-1986. As shown above the direction was issued on 20-2-1986 while the application was filed on .15-3-1987 that is beyond a period of one year. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act provide that no court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, ether on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of the period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. Moreover, notice to show cause why the proceedings be not initiated was passed at a much later stage and as such no action within the postulates of section 12 can be taken in view of the recital in section 20 of the said Act. 19. LEARNED counsel for the opposite parties has placed reliance to supplement his contention that in view of section 20 no action can be taken. "In the case of Ram Naresh Singh v. Uma Shankar Bajpai, 1988 ALJ 114, Peer Bux v. Raja Ram, 1988 ALJ 700, Dinesh Chandra Sharma v. B. K. Banerji 1988 ALJ 1279, and other catena of decision with which I agree. It is thus clear that the application is not maintainable and deserves to be rejected. Moreover, it is borne out from the record that on account of departmental hazards certain dues of the applicant could not be paid but it is manifestly clear that none of the opposite parties willfully disobeyed the order of the court dated 20-2-1986. It is thus clear that the application is not maintainable and deserves to be rejected. Moreover, it is borne out from the record that on account of departmental hazards certain dues of the applicant could not be paid but it is manifestly clear that none of the opposite parties willfully disobeyed the order of the court dated 20-2-1986. The application under section 12 of the Act is being rejected in view of the provisions of section 20 of the Act. 20. HOWEVER, it is expected that the opposite parties will settle the account and pay the dues as permissible to the applicant within one month from the date of production of the copy of this order. In the result the application fails and is hereby dismissed. Costs on parties. Application dismissed.