JUDGMENT : R.S. Dhaon, J. This is a matter in which stay order of the Court of 18 May 1989 is in issue. The contention in the contempt petition is that the stay order has not been complied with by the opposite parties and thus they having breached the conditions of the stay order they have committed contempt. 2. The stay order is in reference to the pending writ petition No. 8282 of 1989 : Flt. Lt. H.B. Mishra v. Union of India. Many of the issues in the writ petition are not the subject matter of these proceedings. Suffice it to say that on 25 April 1989 the petitioner was required to explain certain charges against him. The same day an order terminating his services was passed. It was followed by a formal order on 26 April 1989 which was served on the petitioner. These are matters of record in writ petition. Upon this is based the writ petition itself in which the first order which was passed was by a Bench of Hon'ble J.N. Dubey and Hon'ble R.R. Misra, JJ. The petition was admitted on this date with an interim order. In effect, the stay order was that opposite parties were given directions that the order terminating his services were stayed. This order was passed on May 18, 1989. 3. Apparently, there were efforts to have the order modified on May 18, 1989. The order which was modified by Hon'ble K.C. Agarwal, J. as he then was, is reproduced below : "To me it appears that the interest of justice would be secured if the stay order dated 1-5-1989 is vacated and is substituted by directing the respondent no. 4 (herein the opposite party no. 1 in this petition) to pay past salary for the month of April 1989 within 15 days from today and go on paying the amount to which the petitioner would have been entitled otherwise in case termination had not taken place, by 10th of each succeeding month. The amount will include city compensatory allowance and other usual allowances. The petitioner will also not be evicted from the premises which he is occupying at the present. However, if Flight (Lieutenant) Lt. H.B. Misra leaves the station, Central Air Command (CAC) Bamrauli, Allahabad, at any time he will have to send prior intimation to the respondent no. The amount will include city compensatory allowance and other usual allowances. The petitioner will also not be evicted from the premises which he is occupying at the present. However, if Flight (Lieutenant) Lt. H.B. Misra leaves the station, Central Air Command (CAC) Bamrauli, Allahabad, at any time he will have to send prior intimation to the respondent no. 4 The petitioner is directed not to visit the office in the uniform which he got as Flight Lieutenant. Sri D.P. Singh has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents nos. 1 and 4. For filing counter affidavit on behalf of others he is given three weeks time. The petitioner will have time till 15 July 1989 for filing rejoinder affidavit". 4. This order has become the subject matter of these contempt proceedings. Split up the order works like this : (1) the order of May 1, 1989 staying the termination of the services of the petitioner was substituted and modified (2) there was a direction to the opposite party no. 1 (in writ petition respondent no. (4) (3) the direction was to pay salary for the month of April, 1989 within 15 days (4) direction to pay to the petitioner emoluments to which he would be entitled, otherwise as if termination had not taken place, by 10th of each succeeding month (5) the amount was to include city compensatory allowance and other allowances (6) that there would be no eviction of the petitioner from the premises occupied by him. 5. The other conditions of this order were on the petitioner and against him that (a) he was virtually stripped off his uniform by direction that be would not visit the office in uniform and (b) not leave station without intimation to the Officer Commanding. The sum total of this order works out to this that in so far as the emoluments of the petitioner were concerned they were to remain and paid as if he had not been terminated. The petitioner's uniform had been hung by the Court and was not to be used if he was going to the office. He was not to leave station without permission. These conditions are clear and writ large in the order of 18 May 1989. 6. Apparently there was much friction between the opposite parties and the petitioner, but this court is not concerned with that. 7. He was not to leave station without permission. These conditions are clear and writ large in the order of 18 May 1989. 6. Apparently there was much friction between the opposite parties and the petitioner, but this court is not concerned with that. 7. Reference the circumstances that when the petitioner started receiving his salary it was not the salary given to officers with same status and rank. The allowances also were put under variance. The direction for the payment salary and allowances were clear that they would be paid as if the services of the petitioner had not been terminated. With this direction to the opposite parties, upon an order modified at their instance, the stay order is modified rested. But, the parties continue to be at logger heads. The terms of the order even after modification were embrassed by the opposite parties, when under its terms the petitioner was to take off his uniform and not to visit office in uniform implying that elsewhere he could. He could remain at his residence and receive his play and allowances. 8. The order of 18 May 1989 should have been implemented as straight as it came and upon which modification was sought by the opposite parties. What exactly were the implications of the modified order. The earlier order was of 1-5-1989. It was simply staying the termination order of 25 April 1989. The modified order vacated the earlier order of 1-5-1989. The implication was that the officer-functions of the petitioner ceased The rest of his service conditions remained. He was to have his salary and allowances as if the order of termination has not been passed; protection from eviction from the accommodation provided. There should not have been any issue on keeping the terms of the modified order. The order was clear. The Air Force administration had wanted the petitioner out of administration and had agreed to pay his emoluments and allowances as if the order of termination had not been passed provided he sits at home. This is exactly what the opposite parties had wanted, and, thus, got what they had desired. Otherwise why was the modification sought ? The earlier stay order was vacated to be substituted by the one passed on 18 May 1989. 9. There was much belligerence in presenting the merits of the case between the parties. This is exactly what the opposite parties had wanted, and, thus, got what they had desired. Otherwise why was the modification sought ? The earlier stay order was vacated to be substituted by the one passed on 18 May 1989. 9. There was much belligerence in presenting the merits of the case between the parties. The defence is already on record in counter affidavits by parties to whom notice had been issued. There was much reference to the record of the writ petition in arguments on both sides. Rather than permit this belligerence to continue on how the record of the writ petition lies, the Court, thus, considered it appropriate to have the record of the writ petition before it, as these contempt proceedings do arise out of writ proceedings. 10. There was also much insistence on behalf of the opposite parties to adjourn the proceedings. The Court would have done so, but on one enquiry of the court, no, satisfactory answer was given The adjournment was, thus, denied. To grant the adjournment would have put the Court in a wrong position. The limitation in this matter closes on 1 June 1990, during the summer vacations. There is a judgment of this Court Dinesh Chandra v. B.K Banerji, 1988 ALJ 1279 which declares that mere issue of notice by the High Court does not amount to initiating contempt proceedings as it has been held/that issue of notice or notice of motion is not application of mind of the court to formally initiate proceedings, and a contempt case would stand barred by limitation if the order on the proceedings is at the stage of issue of notice. This means that there may be a possibility that when the court reopens after the summer recess, all the complications of the case being barred by limitation will be there and this would happen only because this Court would permit an adjournment. Let the matter proceed. 11. The issue is very petty, but only if it is understood to be so by the opposite parties. This is hardly a matter where the top brass of the Indian Air Force should get involved in contempt proceedings, after having a stay order modified and yet not honouring a modified order. Let the Court first examine how the opposite parties understood the implications of the order of 18-5-1989. This is hardly a matter where the top brass of the Indian Air Force should get involved in contempt proceedings, after having a stay order modified and yet not honouring a modified order. Let the Court first examine how the opposite parties understood the implications of the order of 18-5-1989. The answer of this is available from the record of the writ petition No. 8282 (A) of 1989; Flt. Lt. H.B. Misra v. Union of India. When the proceedings in this contempt case began this month, there was much activity on record of the writ petition. Four applications were filed by the opposite parties. One was filed on 4-5-1989, this is application no. 10574. Paragraph 8 of this application refers to the present contempt proceedings. The affidavit was sworn on 3-5-1989. The application prays for the hearing of the case. Reason : the present contempt proceedings. The other is application no. 11447 filed on 15 May 1990, placing on record an affidavit affirmed on 26 March 1990. The applicant prays that the application be brought on record. It is submitted that the copy of this application was sent by registered post. The third application is no. 11445. It seeks clarification on the order of 18-5-1989. The fourth application is No. 11446, placing on record another affidavit to be read in support of an application filed on 8-3-1990. The last two applications are supported by affidavits of Group Captain V.K. Sharma, all sworn on 13 May 1990. In the application no. 11446, paragraphs 11 and 12 are relevant. In paragraph 11 the opposite parties submit that "the order for payment (sic) an amount equal to salary on the premises that the matter would be disposed of finally in July 1989". Paragraph 12 says that "the petitioner without being entitled tore working in the Air Force is being given money at the cost of State exchequer". Reference application no 11445, paragraphs 8 to 12 are relevant. The opposite parties are conscious of the issues after the contempt case had been filed and seek modification of the modified stay order after the contempt proceedings were at the stage of issue of notice and defence was being filed in this contempt case and simultaneously four applications were filed in the writ petition. Copies of some of these applications do not appear to have been served on the petitioner. 12. Copies of some of these applications do not appear to have been served on the petitioner. 12. The opposite parties, thus, were conscious on what the issues in the contempt proceedings were. The order of 18 May 1989 was simple in its terms to the effect that the termination order may not be stayed, but the salary and allowances of the petitioner will remain the same. This is how the order stood, good or bad, for both parties. For the administration the petitioner was under the eclipse of the order of termination order. For the accountant, welfare and personnel section he was to be treated as an officer with salary and allowances, implying: continue to give him what he was receiving without variation as if there is no termination order. Otherwise, the issues can be taken to pettiness. 13. The pettiness would work like this. 14. As part of the allowances is the grant of free rations to the officers Tin the three services, consequent upon Government of India; Ministry of Defence, letter no. 3 (l)-83/D (QS) dated 12 April 1983. This has also been referred to in paragraph 68 of the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner. Thus reads : Scale of ration for officers in peace areas. SI. No. Item Scale in Grams. 1. Atta/Rice 450 2. Dal 40 3. Oil Hydro 80 4. Sugar 90 5. Tea 9 6. Salt 20 7. Condiments 20 8. Meat fresh* or milk standard (for vegs) 260 *560 9. Milk Standard Fresh 250 Ml. 10. Vegetable Fresh 170 11. Potatoes 110 12. Fruits-Citras/Non citrus 110/230 13. Onions 60 14. Firewood 1400 15. Eggs 2 nos. 16. Butter 20 17. Dalia 20 18. Sago/cornflour/jelly/custard 7 15. The defence in the counter affidavit is that money in lieu of ration is being paid as this is not to be given to terminated employees, except those on duty. But, the order of 18-5-1989 had directed that the petitioner would receive pay and allowances as if the order of termination had not been passed. There was no scope to vary this balance. It was not intended by the order of 18-5-1989, an order modified at the initiative of the opposite parties that the value of 9 grams of tea, 20 grams of salt, 1400 grams of firewood, 20 grams of butter, 2 eggs, be equated in terms of money. This was an allowance. There was no scope to vary this balance. It was not intended by the order of 18-5-1989, an order modified at the initiative of the opposite parties that the value of 9 grams of tea, 20 grams of salt, 1400 grams of firewood, 20 grams of butter, 2 eggs, be equated in terms of money. This was an allowance. It was to be given as it came. This was the order of 18-5-1989. Otherwise, some one would be equating it in terms of money every day on variation of prices of provisions day to day. 16. Again, there is a grievance of the petitioner that other allowances were being equated in terms of money or not being paid. The conditions of an order of termination not being there (this is what the order of 18-5-1989 is) are that the salary and allowances would continue as they are. This implies pay and delivery allowances and service benefits as if the order of termination is not there This includes Dearness Allowance, any other allowance or contribution made by the employer (Government of India) as a consequence of service. Again the court reminds the opposite parties that the petitioner's case was to be taken for payment of emoluments and service benefits as if the order of termination does not exist. It simply implies pay him and deliver service benefits as payable to any other officer of his rank and equation in service. This implies that the monetary benefits of being in service shall continue as if there is no termination order. But, the petitioner would be without work, command and administration. A defence has been taken that the petitioner cannot have "kit allowance" as he cannot wear his uniform. This is not so. The petitioner cannot wear his uniform and go to office. Let this matter rest here. The petitioner can wear his uniform at home, and yet wearing it may mean nothing "Kit allowance" is part of the allowance to be paid, as if the order of termination is not there. The same analogy goes for increment on dearness allowance. There cannot be a dearness allowance and no increment. The corallary is also there which implies that service condition deductions would also be made as if the order of termination had not been passed. The same analogy goes for increment on dearness allowance. There cannot be a dearness allowance and no increment. The corallary is also there which implies that service condition deductions would also be made as if the order of termination had not been passed. The petitioner would be subjected to income tax deduction, statutory provident fund and the like, as also receive any employer's contribution, as if the order of termination had not been passed. 17. The entire petty and grudging controversy between the petitioner and the opposite parties arose on one basic misunderstanding which is clear from the defence of the opposite parties. The defence is: the petitioner is a terminated employee and thus he is not entitled to this and to be denied that. That the order of termination stands is one aspect of the matter; it takes the petitioner out of administration. That the petitioner will receive salary and allowance as if the order of termination is not there is another aspect of the matter. On the letter aspect no discretion was left with the employer. The order of 18-5-1989 implied; pay and give allowances as if there is no termination. 18. All these aspects were debated at the Bar of the Court, threadbare. The issues are in any case on record of the pleadings exchanged between the parties. A submission was made that the petitioner is a quarrel some Officer and a brief resume of his alleged misbehaviour was given to the court. A reference to allegations against him have been made in the counter affidavit of opposite party no. 1. Thus, what was submitted at the Bar has been submitted in the counter affidavit. But, this Court is not judging the merits of the order of termination or the allegations against the petitioner whilst in service. These will be considered before the Court where the matter is pending. Though, the opposite parties have submitted the merits of the case in the writ petition, of their own before this Court. 19. This Court after examining the pleadings on record and hearing submissions of parties did indicate that if a mistake has happened in understanding or misunderstanding the conditions of the order dated 18-5-1989, then the stage to fall in line with it is now and not after the matter proceed further. 19. This Court after examining the pleadings on record and hearing submissions of parties did indicate that if a mistake has happened in understanding or misunderstanding the conditions of the order dated 18-5-1989, then the stage to fall in line with it is now and not after the matter proceed further. The record reveals that the opposite parties were aware on what the order was about but rather then comply; with it still wanted it modified further. No one should have applied his mind in modifying, curtailing the emoluments, allowances to be received as benefit of service by the petitioner as the over all aspect of the emoluments and benefits of service had to be seen as if there was no order of termination. Whatever the petitioner was receiving before any stay order or modified stay order was passed he should have continued to receive that. The petitioner was in any case in a totally disadvantageous position by being denied the status of being part of the administration. 20. The court had indicated that one of the most prestigious Air Force in the world should not get involved in pettiness of praning the salary, emoluments and service benefits to be received by the petitioner. The court felt that this was too small a matter to be engaging the attention of the court for considering contempt action against the senior officials of the Air Force. The order of 18 May 1989, was very clear on what was denied to the petitioner and what was to be received by him. This court was not expecting to consider the grant or the denial of one allowance or the other or to consider the grant of rice, meat, vegetables, butter and custard, etc. to an officer. A submission on record of the writ petition reveals that the opposite parties had expected that they would have to digest the order until July 1989 only as the matter would be beared by then. But, the time when a case would be heard by the court, regard being had to difficulties of the court also is not a matter which is either under the control of the court or of any party. Various factors prevent the hearing of any case. An order must be adhered to. 21. But, the time when a case would be heard by the court, regard being had to difficulties of the court also is not a matter which is either under the control of the court or of any party. Various factors prevent the hearing of any case. An order must be adhered to. 21. When the proceedings before the court were part heard on 25th May 1990, it appears that the opposite parties became conscious of where the matters were leading to, when issues were all too paltry. The opposite parties apparently had a discussion with their counsel after the court rose on 25th May 1990 and before it resumed proceedings on 26th May 1990. The opposite parties had an affidavit filed today submitting that they had wrongly understood the order dated 18 May 1989." The opposite parties submitted in this affidavit, in effect that the petitioner was entitled to the emoluments, allowances and contribution under the order dated 18th May 1989. which were hither to denied to the petitioner. On behalf of the opposite parties an unqualified apology has been filed for not having conformed to the order of the High Court. The affidavit has been filed by Squadron Leader P.N. Misra, Deputy Command Judge, Advocate at Headquarters Central Air Command, Bamrauli, Allahabad. The affidavit states that Sq. Leader P.N. Misra "has been authorised to file the present affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 1 in this petition due to paucity of time." 22. The court was only hearing the matter as the defence of the opposite parties on record was complete, and an adjournment would have made the proceedings barred by the limitation. The affidavit filed today is opposite to the defence taken. However, the court will consider the affidavit which has been filed today. 23. The desire of every contempt court is that as far as possible proceedings in contempt ought not to be drawn and to grant every opportunity to a party, who is under notice, to ward off contempt proceedings either by a clear defence or to show grace and respect to whatever the order of a court upon which contempt is alleged. But, there is a stage beyond which this opportunity cannot be extended. 24. But, there is a stage beyond which this opportunity cannot be extended. 24. The Court will consider the affidavit which has been filed today within the constraints of certain formalities which may need to be kept, which will be indicated when the court will reopen after the summer recess in July. The affidavit filed today is accompanied by an application seeking a prayer that the contempt application be rejected. There is another prayer for costs to be awarded to the deleted opposite party no. 8. The court does not appreciate the filing of this application accompanying the affidavit when the opposite parties have virtually taken a summersault of their defence within twenty four hours of the last hearing. The Court will consider every aspect which will be placed at the Bar, but there is a time to make a submission, the like of which has been made today, suffice it to say that today was not the time when only yesterday the opposite parties had submitted with much belligerence which has been noticed in this order and their defence is otherwise on record. These comments have been invited from the Court on the application which has been filed today. 25. Submitting an affidavit accepting that there has been denial of service benefits to the petitioner is one aspect of the matter, the grant of it to conform to the order of the court is another aspect. This aspect the opposite parties have yet to carry out and the matter is yet to be reported to the Court. If the affidavit which has been filed today is to be granted faith which it expects from the Court, then let the spirit of the order be complied with which hither to the opposite parties had misunderstood. Let the petitioner receive all that he is to receive as if the order of termination had not been passed. Let the court not be drawn into the exercise inspelling out what the petitioner is to receive and is not to receive. The Court now reposes its faith in the opposite parties that what was denied to the petitioner shall be received by him during the summer recess. The ration which was denied to the petitioner should be made available as given to any officer of Army Forces immediately. 26. The Court now reposes its faith in the opposite parties that what was denied to the petitioner shall be received by him during the summer recess. The ration which was denied to the petitioner should be made available as given to any officer of Army Forces immediately. 26. The opposite parties may give a report to this Court on the total implementation of the order of 18 May 1989, when the matter is listed next. 27. The contempt proceedings were taking an ugly turn. The court appreciates the gesture shown by the opposite party no. I, Air Marshal M.S. Bawa, Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Hq. Central Air Command, Bamrauli, Allahabad as a mark of respect to the order of 18 May 1989. Let this gesture be made complete by delivering what was not received under the order to be made available as from now. The court will leave the matter at this juncture today. 28. List as part heard for hearing on 16 July, 1990. 29. At the end of this order Flt. Lt. H.B. Mishra submitted that it has now been accepted there was a mistake in the implementation of the order as various allowances were to be as if his services had not been terminated, as indicated in the order, then he pleads that he is under straitened circumstances and personal difficulties with a 26 year old unmarried daughter for whom he submits the time has come for him to make arrangements. He desires withdrawal of monies from Defence Officer' Services Fund which is permissible under the regulations. His deposits, he says are credited to his account. This is a matter in which this Court cannot give any directions. This court can only recommend. On this the court can only say that nothing can be done which may be different from any terms in the stay order of 18 May, 1989. The Court notices, and otherwise the terms of the stay order are that the petitioner shall not come to the office in uniform. The implication of this may be that he may not be able to meet anybody who can take a decision at his request face to face. Thus, while the court has reservations in giving any directions it has made request to Mr. The implication of this may be that he may not be able to meet anybody who can take a decision at his request face to face. Thus, while the court has reservations in giving any directions it has made request to Mr. N.B. Singh, Senior Standing Counsel, Central Government that the petitioner's personal request be sent to the Air Officer Commandant in Chief, Central Air Command and the Senior Standing Counsel may forward it for such processing that can be done upon it so that withdrawal from the Defence Officers' Services Fund can be processed. 30. List as indicated above.