O. P. GARG, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel. ( 2 ) THE petitioner--Manglesh Singh, was initially appointed as Clerk on ad hoc basis on 16. 7. 1991 in the pay scale of Rs. 1,200-2,040 in the establishment of Judge, Family Court. Allahabad. Subsequently by Order, dated 1. 9,1992. the petitioner was reverted to the post of Copyist in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1. 500. This order was challenged by the petitioner by means of a writ petition which was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. The petitioner made a representation which was rejected by Honble Inspecting Judge of this Court on 12. 3. 1997. Against this order) the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 13299 of 1997. This writ petition was finally allowed by Honble Mr. Justice M. Katju on 21. 5. 1997. It was observed that in the light of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Hussain Sasansaheb Kaladqi v. State of Maharashtra, 1987 (55) FLR 304, the petitioner who was appointed on a higher scale directly, could not be reverted to a lower pay scale. The impugned orders, dated 1. 9. 1992 and 12. 3. 1997 were quashed. This order is now the subject-matter of special appeal. No stay order has been granted in the special appeal. The order dated 21. 5. 1997 passed in Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 13299 of 1997 still in operation. The petitioner reported to join his duties but he was not allowed to Join by the respondent No. 1, Judge, Family Court. Allahabad. Consequently, the petitioner has moved an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act being contempt Petition No. 6 of 1998. In which a notice has been issued to Sri Surendra Pratap mishra, Judge, Family Court, Allahabad. , respondent No. 2. and he has been directed to comply with the order dated 21. 5. 1997 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13299 of 1997 by 16. 2. 1998. What Sri Surendra Pratap Mishra. respondent No. 2 has done is that he has dispensed with the services of the petitioner on 12. 1. 1998 treating him to be an ad hoc employee. No formal order of termination appears to have been served on the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application on 16. 1. 2. 1998. What Sri Surendra Pratap Mishra. respondent No. 2 has done is that he has dispensed with the services of the petitioner on 12. 1. 1998 treating him to be an ad hoc employee. No formal order of termination appears to have been served on the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application on 16. 1. 1998 before the Judge, Family Court, Allahabad, a copy of which is contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition on which an endorsement has been made by Sri Brij bhushan Pandey, Munsarim of the Family Court. Allahabad, intimating the petitioner that the petitioner has already been informed on 12. 1. 1998 that his services are to stand terminated w. e. f. 13. 1. 1998 and. therefore, there is no justification to take work from the petitioner. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner pointed out that it is now clear, though no order has been served on the petitioner, that the services of the petitioner have been terminated w. e. f. 13. 1. 1998 without serving any notice on the petitioner. ( 4 ) SINCE it was a local matter, learned standing counsel was directed to obtain instructions from sri Surendra Pratap Mishra, Judge, Family Court, Allahabad, respondent No. 2 as to under what circumstances, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with and that the respondent No. 2 shall appear before this Court along with service record of the petitioner. ( 5 ) SRI Surendra Pratap Mishra, Judge, Family Court, Allahabad is present in Court. A number of documents have been produced before this Court to indicate that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1991 on ad hoc basis and since the work and conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory and he was involved in the mal-practices, his services have been dispensed with treating him to be an ad hoc employee without giving him any notice. It was also pointed out that the annual confidential entries made in the character roll of the petitioner are not neat. The original character roll of the petitioner was produced. There is an entry for the year 1992-93, wherein late Mohd. Farooq, Judge, Family Court, Allahabad has observed that the work of the petitioner as Accounts Clerk was not satisfactory. In the year 1993-94, late Mohd. Farooq has again recorded annual remarks and found the work and conduct of the petitioner as satisfactory. There is an entry for the year 1992-93, wherein late Mohd. Farooq, Judge, Family Court, Allahabad has observed that the work of the petitioner as Accounts Clerk was not satisfactory. In the year 1993-94, late Mohd. Farooq has again recorded annual remarks and found the work and conduct of the petitioner as satisfactory. However, he observed that the hand-writing of the petitioner is not legible. The work and conduct of the petitioner for the year 1994-95 was found to be good and his integrity was certified. It was in the year 1996-97 that Sri Surendra Pratap Mishra has recorded an adverse entry on the basis of certain facts. Sri Surendra Pratap Mishra. respondent No. 2 has also lodged a report against the petitioner and others under the Prevention of Corruption Act, being Crime case No. 139 of 1997, police station Colonelganj, Allahabad. This entry is dated 10. 11. 1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the adverse entry recorded by Sri Surendra pratap Mishra, respondent No. 2. as well as the previous remarks were never communicated to the petitioner and, therefore, no weight can be attached to the adverse remarks made in the character roll, and that in any case. the entry made by Sri Surendra Pratap Mishra is tainted as he has taken to his head to weed out the petitioner. It was also pointed out that there is another employee with the name of A. R. Jafri who was directly appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 1,200-2,040 on ad hoc basis but his services have not been dispensed with nor his pay scale has been reduced to Rs. 950-1,500. ( 6 ) AFTER having heard learned counsel for the parties and taken into consideration the facts and circumstances attending the case. I find that the order of ceasing the petitioner from employment has come in the wake of filing of the contempt petition by the petitioner. The petitioner was seeking to implement order dated 21. 5. 1997 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 13299 of 1997. When Sri Surendra Pratap Mishra, respondent No. 2 failed to implement the said order, the petitioner had no option but to file a petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of courts Act. In contempt case, notice was issued to the respondent No. 2 on 6. 1. 1998. Writ Petition no. 13299 of 1997. When Sri Surendra Pratap Mishra, respondent No. 2 failed to implement the said order, the petitioner had no option but to file a petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of courts Act. In contempt case, notice was issued to the respondent No. 2 on 6. 1. 1998. After a direction was issued by this Court on 6,1. 1998 that the order dated 21. 5. 1997 should be complied with, services of the petitioner have been dispensed with on 12. 2. 1998. The conduct of Sri surendra Pratap Mishra, respondent No. 2. who is a Judicial Officer of long standing and is holding a very responsible post as Judge of the Family Court, which is in the Selection Grade, cannot be said to be upright. He obviously felt incensed on account of issuance of the contempt notice against him by this Court and in utter disregard of the orders of this Court, he had the audacity to terminate the services of the petitioner. By his aforesaid act, Sri Surendra Pratap mishra, Judge, Family Court, Allahabad, respondent No. 2 has shown scant respect to the orders passed by this Court and instead of obeying and putting the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 1. 200-2,040, he has terminated his services by way of vengeance. This conduct of the respondent no. 2, namely. Sri Surendra Pratap Mishra, a very senior Judicial Officer cannot, but be castigated as most reprehensible. The termination order only in regard to the petitioner cannot be justified, particularly when other employees, who were appointed on ad hoc basis have been allowed to continue. It is not a case where services of the ad hoc appointees in the Family Court have been dispensed with. ( 7 ) SRI Surendra Pratap Mishra. Judge, Family Court. Allahabad respondent No. 2 is bound to implement the order dated 21. 5. 1997 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13299 of 1997. He has, of necessity, to treat the petitioner as continuing in the pay scale of Rs. 1,200-2,040 so long the order passed by this Court on 21. 5. 1997 in Civil Misc. Writ No. 13299 of 1997 is not stayed or set aside in the pending Special Appeal. Writ Petition No. 13299 of 1997. He has, of necessity, to treat the petitioner as continuing in the pay scale of Rs. 1,200-2,040 so long the order passed by this Court on 21. 5. 1997 in Civil Misc. Writ No. 13299 of 1997 is not stayed or set aside in the pending Special Appeal. ( 8 ) THE writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been continued in service throughout and the order of cessation of his employment dated 12/13. 1. 1998 shall be ignored. The petitioner shall be allowed to perform his duties with full salary, in the pay scale of Rs. 1,200-2. 040, subject to the decision in the Special Appeal. .