S. N. SAXENA, J. The petitioner moved this contempt petition on 24-4-1990 whereby he prayed that this Court be pleased to punish the opposite party for having deliberately disobeyed the orders of this Court resulting in its contempt. The petitioner has come forward with the following allegations. 2. The petitioner had instituted writ petition No. 12252 of 1989 praying for issuance of writ of mandamus to the opposite party to pay forthwith the salary of the petitioner from 29-3-1985 and also continue to pay the same regularly in future. A Division Bench of this Court on 12-2-1990 passed the following orders in the aforesaid writ petition t "issue Notice. No counter affidavit has been filed. We, therefore, issue an ad-interim mandamus directing the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur city to pay the salary of the petitioner as and when it falls due or to show cause by filing a counter affidavit within six weeks from the date of service of a certified copy of this Order open him. " 3. The petitioner on 17-2-1990 presented the aforesaid order before the opposite party Dr. R. P. Katiyar, Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur city, who initially was the sole opposite party in the contempt petition but he refused to accept the same. The petitioner thereafter sent the same to the opposite party per registered post vide receipt No. 2984. It was a local matter within Kanpur city and, therefore, the aforesaid registered letter must have been received by the opposite party latest by 20-2-1990 but the opposite party till 23-4-1990 did not file counter affidavit in the said writ petition nor complied with the aforesaid ad-interim mandamus, in spite of the fact that the petitioner appro ached him several times in the months of February and March, 1990 for obtaining payment but the same was not made to him. The period of six weeks granted by this Court for payment of the salary to the petitioner had expired and, therefore, need for this contempt petition arose. 4. The opposite party filed counter affidavit in the said contempt on 15-5-1990 in which he had disclosed his name as Dr. R. N. Katiyar while the petitioner had mentioned it as Dr. R,. P. Katiyar. 4. The opposite party filed counter affidavit in the said contempt on 15-5-1990 in which he had disclosed his name as Dr. R. N. Katiyar while the petitioner had mentioned it as Dr. R,. P. Katiyar. He denied the allegations of the petitioner that he had offered a copy of this order to him but admitted that a registered letter sent by the petitioner was received in his office. He thereafter had got prepared a narrative from the Government machinery but due to negligence of his office it could not be filed before this Court. Initially the fault was committed by one of his official Sri D. D. Srivastava whom he had suspended. He filed the said narrative as Annexure CA-3 to the affidavit. In paragraph No. 9 of the counter affidavit he con tended that he had not committed any contempt of this Court but if the Court arrived at the conclusion that contempt had been committed by him, he tendered unqualified apology. 5. It may be mentioned that the writ petition No. 12252 of 1989 which gave rise to this contempt proceeding is confined to the question of payment of the salary alone to the petitioner and the question of his transfer is not involved in it. 6. It may also be mentioned that in the matter relating to the transfer of the petitioner by the opposite party, he earlier had filed writ petition No. 5280/1985, 5044/1985, 10055/1987 and 4423/1985 in the High Court for cancellation of his transfer which had been dismissed by this Court. The petitioner was transferred to P. H. C. Sarwankhera against which he had submitted a representation before Honble Minister concerned as well as Secretary Medical and Health Department of the State. The Government by its order No. 881/fkd/cin-Health-89,^dated 16-2-1989 cancelled his transfer and further directed for payment of the wages to him. He applied for a copy of the aforesaid order but the same was not given to him. The petitioner had submitted a representation dated 12-2-1989 also in which it was mentioned that he was still working as basic health worker at Sarsol but had not been paid salary since 1985 although no formal departmental proceeding was pending decision against him and, therefore, necessary orders may be passed for payment of the salary etc. , to him. The petitioner had submitted a representation dated 12-2-1989 also in which it was mentioned that he was still working as basic health worker at Sarsol but had not been paid salary since 1985 although no formal departmental proceeding was pending decision against him and, therefore, necessary orders may be passed for payment of the salary etc. , to him. The concerned Minister on 15-3- 1989 passed the orders as contained in Annexure No. 5 of the writ petition, wherein it was specifically directed that if there was no disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, he should be informed about the same. If no disciplinary pro ceeding was pending decision, then the payment should be given to him with information to the Minister within 15 days. The opposite party, however, flouted the orders of the Government also. 7. The petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit dated 5-7-1990. He re asserted that the opposite party had clearly flouted the aforesaid order of this Court inasmuch as he bad neither shown cause within a period of six weeks nor paid salary to him and therefore, he was liable to be punished. The opposite party Dr. Katiyar retired during the pendency of the proceedings and his successor Dr. Ram Babu was then also impleaded as opposite party. The application for his impleadment was allowed by this Court on 5-9-1991 and the show-cause notice was issued to him for 7-10-1991. Dr. Ram Babu filed counter affidavit on 11- 10-1991 stating that he had taken over as Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur city on 22-6-1990. He contended that he had been wrongly called upon by the Court to answer the charge of the contempt which has arisen on account of non-compliance of the order, dated 12-2-1990. After his taking over as Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur city on 22-6-1990, this Court had not passed any direction to him for payment of the salary to the petitioner and he. therefore, could not be held responsible for non- payment of salary to him. In case, any such direction had been given to him, he would have taken appropriate steps in accordance with the same. The petitioner also did not approach him for payment of salary to him. Notice to show-cause issued to him on 5-9-1991 was, therefore, liable to be discharged. He further contended that the writ petition itself of the present contempt petition was filed against the transfer of the petitioner. The petitioner also did not approach him for payment of salary to him. Notice to show-cause issued to him on 5-9-1991 was, therefore, liable to be discharged. He further contended that the writ petition itself of the present contempt petition was filed against the transfer of the petitioner. The petitioner had challenged the said transfer order by means of writ petition Nos. 5280/85 and 12914/87 which wore dismissed and he thereafter, filed the present petition. 8. The petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit in respect of the aforesaid counter affidavit of Dr. Ram Babu. He contended that after Dr. Ram Babu had taken over as Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur city on 22-6- 1990, he was reasonably expected and required by law to deal with the pending cases also and ensure compliance of this Courts order for payment of the salary to him. After service of the notice to show cause issued by this Court upon Dr. Ram Babu, it had become obligatory for him to comply with the order dated 12-2-1990 which had neither been vacated nor modified. 9. Dr. Ram Babu filed another affidavit dated 5-3-1993 in which he repeated the aforesaid allegations in paragraph No. 8 and contended that the petitioner since the order dated 29-3-1985 did not work and another person had come to join his post after the petitioner was relieved. He, therefore, was not entitled to get his salary as he did not work. 10. It is important to mention here that initially the alleged contempt was in respect of the ex-parte order dated 12-2-1990. This Court, later on 11-8-1992 directed that the contempt application should be heard after confirmation or vacation of the ex-parte order. On 18-11-1992 the said ex-parte order dated 12-2-1990 was confirmed by this Court and it read as follows: "after hearing learned counsel for the parties, I confirm ad-interim order granted on 12-2-1990 and it is further directed that the petitioner will be paid salary regularly". 11. The opposite party, even then did not comply the confirmed interim order. Honble brother Sri R. B. Mehrotra, J. sitting in the contempt bench on 3-2-1993, in view of the aforesaid situation, directed as follows : "in view of this development, I direct Dr. 11. The opposite party, even then did not comply the confirmed interim order. Honble brother Sri R. B. Mehrotra, J. sitting in the contempt bench on 3-2-1993, in view of the aforesaid situation, directed as follows : "in view of this development, I direct Dr. Ram Babu the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur city that in compliance of this Courts order dated 12-2-1990 as confirmed on 18-11-1992 to pay salary to the applicant and all his post arrears of salary to which he is entitled in pursuance of the order 12-2-1990 within a period-of one month from today and file an affidavit in compliance of this order on or before 5th March, 1993 failing which he should appear in person. Since opposite party Dr. Ram Babu is already represented by the Standing Counsel, fresh notice need notice sent to him. " 12. The opposite party, in spite of the aforesaid very clear direction, given by Honble brother Sri R. B. Mehrotra, did not comply the same. 13. This Court on 10-9-1993 granted a short adjournment to the opposite party and ordered that the petition be listed on 30th September, 1993 to enable the opposite party to comply with this Courts order. The aforesaid confirmed order, however, was not complied with by the opposite party and due to the absence of the opposite party, the case resulted in a number of adjournments. 14. It appears from the order sheets that the question of joining of the petitioner at P. H. C. Sarsol in District Kanpur Nagar which was totally irrelevant so far as this contempt petition was concerned, kept engaged this Court of a long period. A very limited question for consideration before this Court was the payment of the salary to the petitioner as directed by this Court. Court was not expected to enquire about the aforesaid irrelevant question as to whether the petitioner had joined at P. H. C. , Sarsol in district Kanpur Nagar or not. 15. During the hearing of this contempt petition it was contended for the opposite party that nothing could be paid to the petitioner unless he had joined at the aforesaid centre but evidently this contention was devoid of merits. Sitting in contempt jurisdiction, the only question for consideration by this Court was the compliance of the aforesaid confirmed order passed by this Court as already observed above. Sitting in contempt jurisdiction, the only question for consideration by this Court was the compliance of the aforesaid confirmed order passed by this Court as already observed above. I, therefore, do not propose to enter into the uncalled for controversy regarding the joining otherwise of the petitioner at the aforesaid centre. The fact remained that Dr. Ram Babu flouted the direction of this Court dated 3-2-1993 as well as order dated 10-9-1993 without any justification for the same. A period of about one and half year has elapsed since this Court, on 3-2-1993, had directed the opposite party to comply the order of this Court dated 12-2-1990 as confirmed on 18-11-1992 within a period of one month from 3-2-1993 and file affidavit in compliance of this order on or before 5th March, 1993. That direction again was repeated by this Court on 10-9-1993 but even then compliance was not made by the opposite party. Under these circumstances, it can reasonably be inferred that the opposite party had deliberately flouted the aforesaid directions and thereby committed clear contempt of this Court. 16. It is significant to mention here that the opposite party had earlier been directed by the Government also to pay the salary of the petitioner, if no formal departmental proceeding was pending decision against him but the opposite party paid no attention to the said direction although admittedly that no departmental proceeding was pending against the petitioner. The opposite party thus, in view of the said direction from the Government did not require any fresh order for payment of the salary to the petitioner. The aforesaid direction issued by this Court should have been complied with by him. He however, made no attempt at all for compliance of the said order. 17. It was contended for the opposite party that the writ petition filed by the petitioner had not been decided as yet and therefore, he could not be held guilty of contempt due to the alleged flouting of an interim order passed by this Court. The contention however, appears to be devoid of merits. The interim order dated 12-2-1990 was passed after giving an opportunity to the opposite party to file counter affidavit which however, was not filed. Subsequently on 18-11-1992, the aforesaid order was confirmed by this Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties. The contention however, appears to be devoid of merits. The interim order dated 12-2-1990 was passed after giving an opportunity to the opposite party to file counter affidavit which however, was not filed. Subsequently on 18-11-1992, the aforesaid order was confirmed by this Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties. Honble Supreme Court in its decision reported in AIR 1993 Supreme Court at page 1632, Major General B. M. Bhattacharjee (retired) and another, v. Kussel Estate Corporation and another, held that contempt of an interim order was punishable if the same had been passed after hearing learned counsel for the parties. Honble Supreme Court had held the opposite parties guilty of contempt for having flouted its interim order which had been passed after hearing the opposite parties. In this case before this Court also the interim order was confirmed on 18-11-1992 by Honble brother Mr. M. Katju, J. after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. It cannot, therefore, be said that the contempt application was not maintainable as the alleged contempt was in respect of the interim order only. 18. It was also contended for the opposite party that no formal charge of contempt was framed in this case due to which he was prejudiced in his defence and therefore, he could not be punished. The contention appears to be devoid of merits. It is, no douht, correct that no formal charge was framed although this writ petition is pending since 25-4-1990 but the question of prejudice of the opposite party does not arise as he fully understood the facts of the case. The question involved was a very short one namely, the payment of the salary to the petitioner and the opposite party fully understood the same counter affidavit filed on 11-10-1991 clearly shows that he filed the same understanding the allegations of the petitioner against him. He himself has reproduced the said interim order dated 12-2-1990 at page 2 of the counter affidavit. He got filed another affidavit dated 18-5-1992 of Sri R. D. Tiwari, who was posted as senior assistant a perusal of which showed that the contempt petition was heard and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it was directed to be listed on 18th May, 1992. The opposite party Dr. He got filed another affidavit dated 18-5-1992 of Sri R. D. Tiwari, who was posted as senior assistant a perusal of which showed that the contempt petition was heard and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it was directed to be listed on 18th May, 1992. The opposite party Dr. Ram Babu, on 5-3-1993 moved an application before this Court for exemption of this personal presence, which was accompanied by his affidavit in which he mentioned in paragraph No. 2 that the contempt petition was listed before the Court on 3-2-1993 when this Court had passed the order directing him to comply the order dated 12-2-1990 which was confirmed on 18-11-1992. He thus, knew all the relevant facts including the direction of this Court dated 18-11-1992 for compliance of the confirmed interim order and there was no occasion for any prejudice so far as his defence was concerned. Again on 16-11-1993 Dr. Ram Babu had moved an application for exemption of personal presence which too was accompanied by his affidavit. After going through the affidavits I find that he fully understood the nature of the case. At this late stage of the case therefore I do not find it necessary or proper to frame a formal charge against the opposite party. 19. Before parting with the case reference may be made to a decision of Honble Supreme Court reported in 1994 Vol. 2 U. P. Local Bodies and Educational Cases at page 741, Mohd. Iqbal Khandav v. Abdul Majid Rather which was relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel in support of his argument that the aforesaid confirmed ad-interim order could not be imple mented as there were inseparable difficulties due to which this contempt petition was liable to be dropped. After going through the aforesaid decision, I find that it was of no help for the opposite party. To the contrary, it supported the contention of the petitioner that a clear case of contempt was made out, more so because the implementation of the aforesaid confirmed order did not involve any difficulty whatsoever. To my mind, payment of salary and arrears thereof as directed by this Court on 3-2-1993 did not involve any difficulty and could be easily complied with if the opposite party honestly intended to comply the same. To my mind, payment of salary and arrears thereof as directed by this Court on 3-2-1993 did not involve any difficulty and could be easily complied with if the opposite party honestly intended to comply the same. The record, however, does not reveal that even slightest attempt was made by the opposite party for compliance of the order. Under these circumstances he deliberately flouted the confirmed interim mandamus of this Court. 20. The contention of Dr. Ram Babu that the contempt if any was committed by Dr. R. P. Katiyar and not by him was devoid of merits. This Court had issued confirmed interim mandamus to Chief Medical Officer Kanpur city and not Dr. R. P, Katiyar by name. Dr. Ram Babu being the successor of Dr. R. P. Katiyar was as much bound to obey the mandamus as Dr. Katiyar himself. It has already been discussed above that a number of directions were given to Dr. Ram Babu to comply the interim confirmed mandamus but he paid no heed to the same. He even went up to the extent of stating in his counter affidavit that this Court had wrongly called upon him to show-cause against his punishment for the alleged contempt committed by him. He also wrongly contended in one of his counter affidavit that the dispute in writ petition related to the transfer of the petitioner. As a matter of fact of this Court was not required to enter into the validity of the transfer of the petitioner as the same had been set aside by the Government itself. It would be useful to reproduce paragraph No, 12 of the writ petition filed by the petitioner: "that in these circumstances it is clear that opposite parties are acting arbitrarily, illegally and are victimising the petitioner even though the order of transfer has been recalled and there are specific orders for payment of salary of the petitioner and it is just and proper that suitable direction may be issued to opposite parties to pay the salary of the petitioner within specified time. " 21. In his prayer also in the writ petition the petitioner prayed for writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay forthwith the salary of the petitioner from 29-3-1985 as well as month by month as and when it falls due. 22. From the above discussions it is evident that Dr. " 21. In his prayer also in the writ petition the petitioner prayed for writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay forthwith the salary of the petitioner from 29-3-1985 as well as month by month as and when it falls due. 22. From the above discussions it is evident that Dr. Ram Babu treated the confirmed interim mandamus of this Court in a very causal manner and did not even try to ascertain the correct facts. How then he could be expected to obey the confirmed interim mandamus which he evidently intentionally flouted and therefore, was liable for punishment. 23. It was contended for Dr. Ram Babu that the real contemner if any was Dr. R. P. Katiyar and, therefore, he alone was liable for punishment. I however, did not find it necessary to summon Dr. Katiyar for receiving punishment in this case mainly because this Court on 11-8-1992 had ordered for decision of the contempt petition after the decision of the appli cation of the respondent filed in Writ Bench whereby he had prayed for vacation of the interim mandamus - vide the order on the order-sheet dated 11-8-1992. Till then it was a case of an ex parts interim mandamus. No doubt deliberate and intentional disobedience of an ex parte order also was punishable but it would not be proper to consider the case for punishment of the ex-parte interim mandamus in view of this order dated 11-8-1992 which later was confirmed by the writ Bench on 18-11-1992. Dr. R. P. Katiyar had retired from service long before the confirmation of the interim mandamus on 18-11-1992, and Dr. Ram Babu had filed his counter affidavit on 11-10-1992 disclosing therein that he had taken over as Chief Medical Officer Kanpur city on 26-6-1990. Dr. R. P. Katiyar in paragraph No. 9 of his counter affidavit tendered unqualified apology also for the alleged contempt. Under these circumstances, I do not find it just and proper to summon Dr. R. P. Katiyar, particularly as he had retired from service. 24. It may be mentioned here that Dr. Ram Babu did not tender apology for the aforesaid deliberate and intentional contempt of this Courts confirmed interim mandamus. Under these circumstances, I do not find it just and proper to summon Dr. R. P. Katiyar, particularly as he had retired from service. 24. It may be mentioned here that Dr. Ram Babu did not tender apology for the aforesaid deliberate and intentional contempt of this Courts confirmed interim mandamus. To the contrary he blamed the High Court itself by contending as follows in paragraph No. 10 of his counter affidavit on 7th October, 1991: "the deponent thus, has wrongly been called by this Court to answer the charges of the contempt of court which has arisen on account of the alleged non-compliance of the order dated 12-2-1990. " 25. For the above reasons, I hold Dr. Ram Babu guilty of Civil Contempt of this Court and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I impose a sentence of one month simple imprisonment in addition to fine of rupees two thousand upon him. The fine shall be paid into this Court by him within two weeks from today and in default thereof, Dr. Ram Babu shall undergo further simple imprisonment of two weeks. Dr. Ram Babu shall also pay the costs of this contempt petition to the petitioner which are assessed at rupees three thousand within two weeks from today. In case of failure to pay the same, the petitioner shall be entitled to get executed this order as a decree of Court against Dr. Ram Babu, who shall be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the sentence of imprisonment. 26. Notice of contempt issued to Dr. R. P. Katiyar is discharged. Application allowed. .