B. K. RATHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the opposite parties for violating the order dated 11-10-99 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43646 of 1999 Dr. K. M. Srivastava v. State of U. P. and others. ( 2 ) I have heard Sri Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O. P. Singh, learned counsel for opp. party No. 2 and the learned standing counsel and have gone through the affidavits. ( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition are as follows : The petitioner was appointed as Co-operative Inspector Group-I on 24-9-80. He cleared the departmental examination within one year and became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies. That an ad hoc selection was organised on 15-10-88 and certain persons were selected. The petitioner was not promoted. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the ad hoc promotion in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31874 of 1990. In that writ petition on 16-7-92 this Court issued interim mandamus directing the opp. parties to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Thereafter a list was issued on 18-2-97 and the petitioner was promoted on the said post, but he was not promoted with effect from 13-2-89, when he became eligible. However, the petitioner joined the post on 1-3-97. Thereafter, on the request of the petitioner he was transferred by an order dated 28-8-97 from Azamgarh to Allahabad on the post of Additional district Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Allahabad. The petitioner took charge on that post on 13-9-97. The petitioner also filed Contempt Petition No. 2308 of 1993 and by an order dated 16-4-98 opp. party No. 2, who was the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, was directed to appear in person in the Court. Opposite Party No. 2, therefore, prejudiced, and only thirteen days after his appearance in the Court, on 14-4-98 he transferred the petitioner from Allahabad to Tehri in hill cadre and in his place Sri Gajroop Kushwaha was posted at Allahabad. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application in Civil Misc. Opposite Party No. 2, therefore, prejudiced, and only thirteen days after his appearance in the Court, on 14-4-98 he transferred the petitioner from Allahabad to Tehri in hill cadre and in his place Sri Gajroop Kushwaha was posted at Allahabad. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application in Civil Misc. Petition No. 2308 of 1993, on which interim mandamus was issued on 12-5-98 that till 22-5-98 the petitioner may not be forced to join at Tehri and in the mean time the petitioner may file a representation, which shall be decided after giving opportunity of hearing by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. That accordingly the petitioner moved the representation and also appeared personally before the Registrar on 15-6-98. After hearing the petitioner by an order dated 6-7-98 the petitioner was transferred from Allahabad to Hath Kargha Bastra Udyog Nideshalaya, Kanpur. The petitioner again challenged that order in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43646 of 1999, in which an interim order was passed on 11-10-99, which is Annexure 1 to the affidavit. The following order was passed :-"meanwhile the operation of the order dated 6-7-98 shall remain in abeyance. However, it will be open for the respondent to adjust and make arrangement for Mr. Gajroop Kushwaha regarding his posting". This order was passed by the Division Bench. ( 4 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that even after this order, the opposite parties have neither made any arrangement for Gajroop Kushwaha for his posting nor have permitted the petitioner to work on the said post nor have paid salary to him. Therefore, the opposite parties have flouted the order and they should be punished for the same. It is further contended that against this order S. L. P. No. 17941 of 1999 was preferred in the Honble Supreme Court, which has also been dismissed. ( 5 ) THE contempt petition has been contested and it is contended by the opposite parties that the order of this Court has been complied with and no contempt has been committed. Opposite party No. 2 Sri V. V. Singh Vishwan, Registrar, Co-operative Societies U. P. Lucknow filed his own short counter affidavit showing as to how the order of this Court has been complied with. It is contended that Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31874 of 1990 was filed by Shiv Pratap and five others including the petitioner, which was regarding promotion. It is contended that Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31874 of 1990 was filed by Shiv Pratap and five others including the petitioner, which was regarding promotion. In that writ petition the respondents were asked to pass a speaking order on the representation of the petitioners of that case by an order dated 4-10-93. In that case contempt application No. 2308 of 93 was also filed by the petitioners, in which on 1-12-93 this Court ordered that the representation of the petitioners shall be disposed of, if not already disposed of and the order shall be communicated to the petitioners. The representation of the petitioners was rejected and it was communicated to all the petitioners on 4-3-94 and that order was not challenged. That the petitioner was transferred from Allahabad to Tehri by an order dated 29-4-98. The petitioner, thereafter moved an application for stay of transfer in Contempt Petition No. 2308 of 1993 for staying the transfer order, in which Honble I. M. Quddusi, J. on 12-5-98 ordered that till 22-5-98 the petitioner shall not be compelled to join at Tehri. In the mean time, the petitioner may file representation, which shall be disposed of by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies with a reasoned order. The date 12-5-98 was extended till 10-7-98. That the stay order has also expired on 10-7-98 and it was not extended. Sri Gajroop Kushwaha took charge on the post on which the petitioner was working on 2-5-98 and is working since then. However, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies U. P. Lucknow, though there was no stay order after 10-7-98, modified its order and on 6-7-98 transferred the petitioner to Kanpur in place of Tehri. An order was also passed for payment of salary to Gajroop Kushwaha, who was already working on the post. However, the order for payment of salary was stayed by Honble I. M. Quddusi, J. till 6-7-99. That order was extended on 6-7-99. Therefore, Sri Gajroop Kushwaha aggrieved by that order filed Special Appeal No. 629 of 1999 in which it was ordered on 9-8-99 that all the interim orders passed by the learned single Judge pertaining to the transfer of the petitioner shall remain stayed. That the said order dated 9-8-99 is still in force and therefore, the salary is being paid to Sri Gajroop Kushwaha. That the said order dated 9-8-99 is still in force and therefore, the salary is being paid to Sri Gajroop Kushwaha. That the result of the order of the Division Bench is that the transfer order of the petitioner dated 6-7-98 by which he was transferred to Kanpur, was stayed and the earlier transfer order dated 29-4-98 transferring him to Tehri came into operation. Inspite of it, the petitioner did not join at Tehri. Contempt Petition No. 2308 of 1993 filed by the petitioner and others, was dismissed on 12-11-99. However, it was ordered that the petitioner can challenge the transfer order before the appropriate Court. Even after dismissal of the contempt petition, the petitioner did not join at Tehri and filed another Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43646 of 1999 challenging the transfer order dated 6-7-1998 in which the impugned order was passed on 11-10-99 and the transfer order of the petitioner dated 6-7-98 was stayed and it was further ordered that the respondent to adjust and make arrangement for Mr. Gajroop Kushwaha regarding his posting. ( 6 ) IT is contended by Sri O. P. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties that the transfer order dated 6-7-98 in the above writ petition was stayed, the earlier transfer order dated 29-4-98 came in force. That it also remained in force because of the order passed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 629 of 1999. That after considering these orders and the representation of the petitioner, by an order dated 21-2-2000 Dr. K. M. Srivastava has been attached in the office of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies U. P. Allahabad. That inspite of this order, the petitioner has not joined on that post till today and therefore, he is not being paid his salary. ( 7 ) AFTER close scrutiny of the transfer orders, I am of the view that certain inconsistent orders were passed in different writ petitions and contempt petitions. All those orders were considered in the order dated 21-2-2000 and the Registrar, Co-operative Societies in its wisdom has passed the order attaching the petitioner to the office of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies U. P. Allahabad and his transfer to Kanpur has been cancelled. By an order dated 11-10-99 the transfer order dated 6-7-98 has been stayed. All those orders were considered in the order dated 21-2-2000 and the Registrar, Co-operative Societies in its wisdom has passed the order attaching the petitioner to the office of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies U. P. Allahabad and his transfer to Kanpur has been cancelled. By an order dated 11-10-99 the transfer order dated 6-7-98 has been stayed. However, there is no order that the petitioner shall continue on the same post, though it has been mentioned that Mr. Gajroop Kushawaha shall be adjusted and the arrangement shall be made for him by the opp. parties. From this the inference drawn by the petitioner is that he was directed to continue on the said post. However, this inference cannot be drawn by the wordings of the said order. The reason for the same is that the petitioner who was transferred from Allahabad only challenged the transfer from Allahabad and there was no request in his petition that the petitioner be permitted to work on that very post. The entire grievance in the petition was that the petitioner may not be transferred from Allahabad. The transfer order from Allahabad has been cancelled and the petitioner has been attached on another post at Allahabad itself. Therefore, the order dated 11-10-99 has been complied with in the spirit of the order and it cannot be said that this order has been flouted. ( 8 ) IT may also be added that the opposite party No. 2 has taken pains in interpreting the various orders passed by this Court in different writ petitions and the contempt petitions and have narrated all the orders including the order dated 11-10-99 and the order of Division Bench passed in the special appeal and have made a genuine attempt to comply with all these orders and accordingly cancelled the transfer order of the petitioner and attached him to the office of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies U. P. Allahabad. If on hair-splitting of the orders, it is found that they have not been correctly interpreted by the opp. parties, it cannot be said that they have wilfully flouted the order of this Court making them liable for the punishment in the contempt. If on hair-splitting of the orders, it is found that they have not been correctly interpreted by the opp. parties, it cannot be said that they have wilfully flouted the order of this Court making them liable for the punishment in the contempt. It appears from the order dated 21-2-2000 that the transfer order has been passed in their wisdom after application of mind considering all the orders of this Court and there does not appear any mala fide intention or intention to flout the order of this Court. If the argument of the petitioner is that he cannot be attached to the office, the remedy open to him is to file a fresh writ petition as he has been doing in the past, but there is no case for punishment of the opposite parties for wilful disobedience of the order of this Court. ( 9 ) THE petition is accordingly dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed. .