Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 680 (JHR)

Arun Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2011-07-15

PRAKASH TATIA

body2011
JUDGMENT: Heard the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2.The present writ petition has chequered history as the petitioner initially preferred W.P.(S) No. 328 of 2005 before this Court challenging the order contained in Memo No. 2398 of 2009 dated 17.12.2008 whereby the services of the petitioner have been sent back to his parent department i.e., Water Resource Department, Government of Jharkhand. The petitioner's said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 20.08.2005. The petitioner preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 588 of 2005 before Division Bench of this Court and petitioner's said L.P.A. was dismissed by order dated 08.02.2006. Then petitioner preferred Civil Review Petition No. 102 of 2006 seeking recalling and setting aside of the order passed in L.P.A. dated 08.02.2006 on the ground that the respondents submitted a wrong fact in the counter affidavit and, therefore, the order dated 8.2.2006 passed in L.P.A. requires to be reviewed and petitioner's said Review Petition was dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 08.02.2007. The petitioner's review petition was dismissed after taking note of the contention given by the petitioner that there was a delay of 257 days in filing the Review Petition but that was because of the reason that the order passed in the L.P.A. No. 588 of 2005 was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal on 07.07.2006 and after taking note of the contention of the petitioner that he moved an application under Right to Information Act for getting some documents on 04.08.2006 which were supplied to the petitioner on 14.09.2006 which indicated that some of the statements made by the respondents were not correct and on that basis petitioner submitted Review Petition. The petitioner then challenged the order passed in Review Petition No. 102 of 2006 dated 08.02.2007 by preferring Special Leave to Appeal No. 7733 of 2007 that too was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex court by passing following order :- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. We do not find any merit in this Special Leave Petition. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. We have been informed that neither the petitioner has been paid salary since December, 2004 nor permitted to join the duty. This matter be looked into by the Department and if the petitioner does not get any relief, it will be open for him to start afresh the proceedings". 3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. We have been informed that neither the petitioner has been paid salary since December, 2004 nor permitted to join the duty. This matter be looked into by the Department and if the petitioner does not get any relief, it will be open for him to start afresh the proceedings". 3. The petitioner now has preferred this writ petition before the Single Bench of this Court on 09.10.2007 to challenge the order passed in his writ petition, W.P.(S) No. 328 of 2005, the order which has been upheld by Division Bench and Supreme Court and against which review petition has been already dismissed by Division Bench. The petitioner also impleaded not only the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary but also the Secretary of the Urban Development Department and Water Resource Department, Government of Jharkhand with 10 other persons who were the officers working in the Said Department. 4. Be that as it may, the petitioner sought following relief in this writ petition :- (i) For recall/setting aside the order dated 28.07.2005 (Annexure-12) passed in W.P.(S) No. 328 of 2005 by a Bench of this Hon'ble Court as the aforesaid writ application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the basis of the false affidavit filed by the State Respondents by fraud before this Hon'ble Court, following the settled principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Indian Bank Vrs. M/s Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1997(5) SUPREME 485 . (ii) For taking stern action against the respondents particularly Resp. Nos. 4 and 10 for filing false affidavit/statement in W.P.(S) No. 328 of 2005 before this Hon'ble Court following the settled principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Dhananjay Sharma Vrs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1995 SC 1795 . (iii) For quashing the Govt. Nos. 4 and 10 for filing false affidavit/statement in W.P.(S) No. 328 of 2005 before this Hon'ble Court following the settled principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Dhananjay Sharma Vrs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1995 SC 1795 . (iii) For quashing the Govt. Memo No. 2398 dated 17.12.2004 (Annexure-8) issued by Urban Development Department by which even after having vacancy of more than 8 posts in the said department after retaining the services of those who joined later on, the service of the petitioner was sent back to Water Resources Department on the ground of having no vacant post and also to quash the Government Memo No. 621 dated 03.03.2005 (Annexure-11) issued by the Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, by which the petitioner was transferred and posted as Assistant Engineer, Design Division No. 2, Medininagar without having any vacant post due to which the petitioner is still moving from pillar to post and is waiting for a proper and valid posting by the Government till date. (iv) For quashing of the Government Memo No. 3790 dated 13.09.2007 (Annexure-21) by which the petitioner has been sent intimation that the petitioner has not submitted his joining on the vacancy created after transfer of Assistant Engineers vide antedated Letter No. 1489 dated 3.8.2005 issued by Sri Sunil Kumar Thakur, the then Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Medninagar (Respondent No. 13) issued by him without any jurisdiction knowingly the Government provisions/circular that the Chief Engineers are not competent to transfer Assistant Engineers from their level and the power is vested in Departmental Establishment Committee headed by the Secretary of the Water Resources Department and that too after approval of Departmental Minister/Chief Minister as evident from Government Letter No. 619 dated 28.07.2001 (Annexure-1/A). (v) For direction to the respondents to make payment of salary w.e. from December, 2004 till date with interest at market rate along with other consequential benefits as the petitioner has been deprived from salary for no valid reason violating the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (vi) For direction to the respondents to make payment of adequate cost and compensation to the petitioner for mental agony, unnecessary harassment as well as suffering with great financial hardship to maintain the daily needs and proper education of the childrens due to illegal and unconstitutional acts of the respondents. (vi) For direction to the respondents to make payment of adequate cost and compensation to the petitioner for mental agony, unnecessary harassment as well as suffering with great financial hardship to maintain the daily needs and proper education of the childrens due to illegal and unconstitutional acts of the respondents. (vii)For grant of such other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner would be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case set forth in the writ application. 5. In this writ petition, on 29.09.2008 an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner. It will be appropriate to quote the operative part of the order :- "Accordingly, respondent no. 3 to make payment of salary to the petitioner which is due from 25.11.2004 and to pass order regarding posting of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order". 6. The petitioner then submitted a Contempt Petition before this Court on 18.11.2008 and alleged that the order dated 29.09.2008 has not been complied with. It appears that in that situation respondents submitted an application for recalling and modification of the interim order dated 20.09.2008. On 30.01.2010 the present writ petition as well as the Contempt Petition no.628 of 2008 both were taken together and the petitioner appeared in person also with his counsel and it was submitted that contempt petition be taken up first and then the Court should her the writ petition as the Respondents have not obeyed the order dated 21.07.2008 and 29.09.2008. The same Bench who passed the interim order after considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in writ petition No. 5702 of 2007 and in Contempt Case No. 628 of 2008, observed that the observation made in the case of M/s. Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India (Supra) were in altogether different circumstances and the Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that we are not unmindful of the situation that refusal to hear a party to the proceeding on merit is drastic step and such a serious penalty should not be imposed on him except in grave and extraordinary situations. Then the Coordinate Bench observed that since the Interlocutory Application has been filed for recall of the order, non-compliance of which has given rise to the contempt petition, appears to be just and appropriate to hear the main writ petition. Then the Coordinate Bench observed that since the Interlocutory Application has been filed for recall of the order, non-compliance of which has given rise to the contempt petition, appears to be just and appropriate to hear the main writ petition. In spite of passing of this order, the petitioner again insisted for hearing of the contempt petition first and that fact has been taken note of in the order dated 30.01.2010 and then the matter was adjourned for four weeks so that in the meantime the petitioner may take proper recourse. The petitioner being aggrieved against the order dated 30.01.2010 preferred S.L.P.(Civil) No. 11253-11254 of 2010 which were disposed of by Hon'ble Supreme Court by passing following order :- "We have heard the petitioner-in-person. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we request the High Court to dispose of the Contempt Application as well as other interlocutory applications and the writ petition simultaneously, as expeditiously as possible. With these observations, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of". 7. On 01.10.2010 the same Bench who passed the interim order dated 29.09.2008 and subsequent order dated 30.01.2010 made exception for both the matters. The matter came up before this Bench on 08.07.2011 and it was noticed that petitioner was even given opportunity to engage the Advocate from the Legal Services Authority and he agreed and took the benefit but thereafter, according to the petitioner, the counsel refused to assist him. 8. Then the petitioner submitted an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1136 of 2011 in the contempt petition for impleading the counsel for the State as well as the Secretary of Water Resource Department, Government of Jharkhand as party in the contempt petition and after taking note of the conduct of the petitioner, the said I.A. was dismissed by this Court(by me) after observing that the petitioner is deliberately not taking assistance of the Advocate so that he can again and again insist for implementation of the interim order for getting the salary by getting the sympathy of the Court and his main writ petition may not be heard. It is relevant that petitioner today also insisted for compliance of interim order first inspite of rejection of his this prayer by this court and by Hon'ble Supreme Court and inspite of fact that petitioner, though in job but not serving anywhere. 9.Be that as it may, on 08.07.2011 it was made clear that the matters will be heard on 15.07.2011 by placing the matter on top of the list as first case and shall not be adjourned and State was directed to make its own arrangement to argue of the case whether its earlier counsel, against whom some frivolous allegations have been levelled, appears or not. 10. The petitioner came with the several judgments and also submitted the written arguments which have been taken on record and the petitioner was interested in reading the written arguments and he was permitted to read the written arguments and this court considered the arguments and the judgments relied upon by the petitioner. 11. In the background of these facts, today arguments of the petitioner are heard and petitioner again submitted that the Coordinate Bench is bound to follow the decision(interim order ) given by the another Coordinate Bench and that argument has been raised only to seek implementation of interim order dated 28.9.2008 and his contention is that since the Coordinate Bench on 29.09.2008 has passed the interim order in favour of the petitioner, therefore, no other view can be taken even while deciding the main writ petition as well as first the respondents be directed to comply with this interim order because petitioner is facing great hardship due to non-payment of the salary since the year 2004. The petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. S.K.Kapoor delivered in Civil Appeal No. 5341 of 2006. An internet copy of said judgment has been provided by the petitioner and the petitioner relied upon this portion of the order that "It is well settled that if a subsequent Coordinate Bench of equal strength wants to take a different view, it can only refer the matter to a larger Bench, otherwise the prior decision of a Coordinate Bench is binding on the subsequent Bench of equal strength". Thereafter, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that since the decision of S.N.Narula's case was not noticed in the T.V.Patel's case, the later decision is a judgment per incuriam. The decision in the S.N.Narula's case was binding on the subsequent Bench of equal strength and hence, it could not take a contrary view, as is settled by a series of judgments of this Court. 12. The said argument has been advanced to submit that the interim order dated 29.09.2008 passed by the Coordinate Bench is binding upon this Bench hearing the main writ petition as well as binding upon the respondent State. The petitioner was made aware that the interim orders have their limited life and they are binding to the extent of the period till the matter is finally decided. The petitioner was also made aware that any finding and observations made in interim order are only interim in nature not binding while deciding the main petition even upon the Court which has passed the order. Though the interim orders binds the parties and compliance of the interim order is required and petitioner was apprised to the legal position that the party against whom interim order was passed has right to seek its recall and in cases where some reason exist, the court may not insist for compliance of the order first, before hearing the main petition. He was also made aware that his prayer for hearing contempt petition or asking the respodnent to comply with the interim order before hearing the writ petition had been rejected by this Court and that order has been upheld by the Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed to decide all matters together in his own S.L.P. Then petitioner was made aware to legal position that what is binding is the order and not the reasons and findings recorded for passing the operative directions contained in the order remain only prima facie findings only. However, the petitioner went on insisting for implementation of the order dated 29.09.2008 as well as insisted for not taking a different view other than the view taken in the order dated 29.09.2008. The argument of the petitioner is liable to be rejected being contrary to law. However, the petitioner went on insisting for implementation of the order dated 29.09.2008 as well as insisted for not taking a different view other than the view taken in the order dated 29.09.2008. The argument of the petitioner is liable to be rejected being contrary to law. It is also liable to be rejected also on the basis of the petitioner's own argument that decision of the Coordinate Bench rejecting his prayer to hear the contempt petition or writ petition may not be heard till the interim order is complied with by respondent is binding upon this court and that decision is the final decision. 13. The petitioner's contention on merit is that, the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 328 of 2005 dated 28.07.2005, since has been obtained by practicing fraud, therefore, is illegal. In support of which the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Indian Bank Vs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1996(5) SCC 550 . 14. In Indian Bank's case, Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed earlier judgments of the Coordinate Bench wherein it has been held that "No judgment of a Court, no order of Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything". Hon'ble Supreme Court then observed that "the judiciary in India also possesses inherent power, specially under Section 151 CPC, to recall its judgment or order if it is obtained by fraud on court. In the case of fraud on a party to the suit or proceedings, the court may direct the affected party to file a separate suit for setting aside the decree obtained by fraud. Inherent powers are powers which are resident in all courts, especially of superior jurisdiction. These powers spring not from legislation but from the nature and the constitution of the tribunals or courts themselves so as to enable them to maintain their dignity, secure obedience to its process and rules, protect its officers from indignity and wrong and to punish unseemly behaviour. This power is necessary for the orderly administration of the court's business". These powers spring not from legislation but from the nature and the constitution of the tribunals or courts themselves so as to enable them to maintain their dignity, secure obedience to its process and rules, protect its officers from indignity and wrong and to punish unseemly behaviour. This power is necessary for the orderly administration of the court's business". The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that "since fraud affects the solemnity, regularity and orderliness of the proceedings of the court and also amounts to an abuse of the process of court, the courts have been held to have inherent power to set aside an order obtained by fraud practised upon the that court". For this very proposition the petitioner relied upon yet another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of A.V.Papayya Sastry & Others Vs. Government of A.P. & Others reported in 2007(2) JLJR(SC) 183 and the judgment delivered in the case of Deepa Gourang Murdeshwar Katre Vs. The Principal, V.A.V. College of Arts & Others reported in 2007 (3) JT 403 and has also relied upon a brief order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Tushar H.Shah Vs. Manilal Pitambardas & Another reported in (2003) 9 SCC 184 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court recalled the order which was passed on the supply of wrong information. With the help of these judgments it has been contended by the petitioner that in fact the petitioner was transferred and posted at Medininagar when there was no vacant post and in reply to petitioner's writ petition it was not disclosed that there was no vacant post and in fact subsequently the department itself found that there was no vacant post at Medininagar and they passed order of transfer of another employee to create a vacancy for the petitioner and since the writ petition of petitioner being W.P.(S) No. 328 of 2005 was decided on the ground that at the time of transfer of the petitioner at Medininagar there was vacant post which in fact was not there and, therefore, the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 328 of 2005 dated 28.07.2005 needs to be set aside or recalled. 15. 15. The facts reveal that the earlier writ petition No. 328 of 2005 of the petitioner was filed to challenge the order No. 2398 dated 17.12.2004 and that order dated 17.12.2004 was to the effect that by this order the services of the petitioner have been sent back to the parent department i.e. Water Resource Department, Government of Jharkhand and argument raised in W.P(S) No. 328 of 2005 was that there were vacancies of Assistant Engineers to accommodate the petitioner but a person posted after him has been accommodated to the post of Assistant Engineer under Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, on the other hand, the services of the petitioner has been sent back to his parent department on the ground of non-availability of post. Then it was contended that the same has been done malafidely and the respondents have issued the order of reversion of the petitioner to his parent department casting stigma on the petitioner that he is an inefficient officer, reluctant towards his responsibility and duty, not reliable and not fit person to be posted in Work Division. Then fact stated by the State was taken note of, that the requisition was made from Urban Development Department whereby the Water Resource Department was requested to forward the names of atleast five Assistant Engineers for their posting. As the Water Resource Department recommended and placed the services of eight Assistant Engineers including the petitioner, the petitioner being in executive service, has been sent back to his parent department. After taking note of these facts, the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed after observing that from the plain reading of the impugned order contained in memo no. 2398 dated 17th December, 2004 the Court found no stigma has been casted on the petitioner and his services have been sent back only on the ground of non-availability of the post and then observed that so far as consideration of the case of the petitioner by the Establishment Committee for his posting is concerned, such procedure is not required to be followed for sending back the service of an employee to his parent department. 16. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred the Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 588 of 2005. Said L.P.A. of the petitioner was dismissed on 08.02.2006. Then petitioner preferred S.L.P. that too was dismissed. 16. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred the Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 588 of 2005. Said L.P.A. of the petitioner was dismissed on 08.02.2006. Then petitioner preferred S.L.P. that too was dismissed. Then the petitioner's Review Petition was dismissed vide order dated 08.02.2007 wherein the petitioner took the same ground that due to the wrong submission of facts by the respondents, the petitioner's writ petition was dismissed and the petitioner challenged the order of dismissal of Review Petition No. 102 of 2006 dated 08.02.2007 by preferring S.L.P. No. 7733 of 2007 which was dismissed vide order dated 07.05.2007 and said order of Hon'ble Supreme Court has been quoted above. The petitioner's S.L.P. was dismissed on merits as Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "we do not find any merit in this Special Leave Petition". The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after taking note of the contention of the petitioner that he has not been paid salary since December, 2004 nor permitted to join the duty, observed that "this matter be looked into by the Department and if the petitioner does not get any relief, it will be open for him to start afresh the proceedings". Taking help of the order dated 07.05.2007 whereby petitioner's S.L.P. was dismissed by the Supreme Court and the petitioner was given limited liberty to approach the department in the matter of his payment of salary and allowing him to join the duty, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition under assumption that he has been given liberty to reopen the all issues which have been decided on merit up to Supreme Court, that too in a matter of transfer and posting and repatriation in parent department. Before proceeding further, this Court feels it proper to observe that all mistakes and all wrong facts cannot be treated to be fraudulent acts as fraud requires mens rea, a conscious act, a deliberate intention of a person in persuading someone to act detrimental to his own interest and it may also be with or without intention to get some benefit to the person who gave wrong facts intentionally but with intention to cause harm to other party. It appears that petitioner's assumption is that every statement of wrong facts amount to a fraud and cannot be a mistake. We cannot ignore the nature of litigation in which such allegations have been levelled. It appears that petitioner's assumption is that every statement of wrong facts amount to a fraud and cannot be a mistake. We cannot ignore the nature of litigation in which such allegations have been levelled. The petitioner's is that the respondent employer, without there being any vacancy, projected that there is a vacancy and passed the order of transfer of the petitioner against a non-vacant post which is apparent from the subsequent conduct of the respondents that they themselves have created a post by transferring another person. This fact itself is not sufficient proof of committing fraud by the respondents and in exigencies of services where the petitioner's writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 328 of 2005 which was originally filed only to challenge the petitioner's repatriation to his parent department with stigmatic order, the petitioner stretched it too far to project that everybody was and is after him and to harm him they have deliberately played fraud for getting his writ petition dismissed. Therefore, this Court is not convinced that it is a case of deliberate fraud so as to cause harm to petitioner. 17. Otherwise also, the judgment, cited by the petitioner himself, delivered in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. S.K.Kapoor (Supra) nowhere helps the petitioner. Argument of the petitioner is self contradictory in as much as, to get benefit of interim order petitioner argued that interim order passed in case is binding upon this Bench and contrary to it argued that final judgment given in his case upheld up to Supreme Court be ignored by Single Bench. S.K.Kapoor (Supra) nowhere helps the petitioner. Argument of the petitioner is self contradictory in as much as, to get benefit of interim order petitioner argued that interim order passed in case is binding upon this Bench and contrary to it argued that final judgment given in his case upheld up to Supreme Court be ignored by Single Bench. I am of the view that the decision given by the Coordinate Bench in petitioner's writ petition No. 328 of 2005 which has not vitiated because of any fraud and which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.02.2006 and against which S.L.P. has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on merit and also the Review Petition of the petitioner has been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court and the dismissal of the Review Petition has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then the petitioner is wrong in submitting that this Court can take a different view from the view taken in the earlier round of litigation which was upheld in appeal, review and in S.L.P. The judgment in W.P.(S) No. 328 of 2005 dated 28.07.2005 is not only a judgment of the Coordinate Bench but is a decision given by a superior Bench i.e., Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 588 of 2005 and affirmed on merit by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, this Court cannot take any contrary view to the decision rendered in such earlier round of litigation initiated by the petitioner himself. 18. 18. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to mention that the petitioner is again under the wrong impression that in order dated 29.09.2008 some findings have been recorded and that confusion may have been caused because of the reason that petitioner failed to notice that the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner have been recorded in detail which petitioner may have assumed that those arguments are the findings of the Court whereas in the interim order, even after noticing of earlier orders passed in the petitioner's writ petition No. 328 of 2005, order passed in L.P.A. and order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, respondents were directed to make payment of salary which is due from 25.11.2004 and to pass order granting posting of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. However, even after passing such order, the learned Single Judge also ordered “it would be quite pertinent to mention that the prayer has been made to direct the Respondent No. 2 for making payment of the salary and to pass order of posting but that issue is itself involved for adjudication in the writ application and, therefore, it would not be desirable to ask the Respondent No. 2 to make payment of the salary and to post him in vacant post”. It appears that in view of the language used in the operative part of the order dated 29.09.2008, confusion was created and the petitioner believed that what has been argued for interim relief is the findings recorded by the Court. 19. Be that as it may, as this Court has already observed that order dated 29.09.2008 is only an interim order and this Court is of the firm view that not only on merit, the petitioner failed to make out any case for recalling or setting aside the order dated 28.07.2005 passed in W.P.(S) No. 328 of 2005 but also failed to make out any case where a writ can be issued by a Single Bench to set aside the order of the Coordinate Bench passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that too which order has already been upheld by the Division Bench and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner for that relief is absolutely misconceived. 20. Therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner for that relief is absolutely misconceived. 20. During the course of arguments and to bring an end to all disputes, the State was asked where they want to post the petitioner then the State counsel, after taking instruction from the officer present in Court, submitted that the petitioner may join duty at Medininagar for which the petitioner insisted that since in the interim order dated 29.09.2008 it has been held that said decision of the State is illegal, therefore, he will not accept this offer and will not join at that place. Then the petitioner was asked to give place of his choice for his posting anywhere in the State or which the petitioner is ready to go and join as the State has given his option which is not acceptable to the petitioner. Then the petitioner stated that he can join at any place but he being an employee cannot insist for any particular post and therefore, he will not suggest where he wants his posting. Even on again and again asking by the Court to give his choice for posting, the petitioner refused to give his choice. This conduct of the petitioner itself was sufficient for dismissal of the entire writ petition without entering into the merit of the case, but this Court already considered the case of the petitioner on merit, therefore, does not want to dismiss the writ petition only on the ground of conduct and lack of bona fide of the petitioner. 21. The learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioner was given several letters asking him to join duties whereas the petitioner stated that he joined his duty before the Secretary, Water Resource Department and, therefore, he has already reported for duty. The petitioner, at this juncture, again relied upon another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Dr. Ramesh Chandra Tyagi Vs. Union of India & Others reported in 1994(2) SCC 416 in support of his argument that only competent authority can pass the order of transfer and delegation of power in the circumstances of that case was found to be not competent. Ramesh Chandra Tyagi Vs. Union of India & Others reported in 1994(2) SCC 416 in support of his argument that only competent authority can pass the order of transfer and delegation of power in the circumstances of that case was found to be not competent. As it has already been noticed that petitioner's only endeavour is entangle not only his department but all his officers in litigation and create an atmosphere of fear in which he succeeded to some extent which is apparent from that fact that the State had to offer in Court the post of his choice anywhere in the State. . 22. It is really unfortunate that the person, who has no knowledge of the law, tried to become the law expert with the help of reading judgments without understanding them but for that reason the Court is punishing the petitioner and this Court is of the view there is no merit in the petition as well as not only writ petition but contempt petition is also not bona fide. The respondents are, therefore, directed to pass an appropriate order of posting of the petitioner within a period of 15 days from receipt of copy of this order and the petitioner shall join the duties at that place of posting and in case petitioner fails to join duties on that place of posting given by the employer, then the respondent department will be free to take appropriate action against the writ petitioner. 23. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to past salary in view of the fact that he admittedly did not discharge any duties during this entire period on one pretext or another pretext and did not obey the order of joining and merely submitting a joining report, even if the petitioner has submitted it to the Secretary, cannot be sufficient compliance of his joining the duty on the post. 24. Be that as it may, in case the petitioner joins the duty within the aforesaid period on the place of posting given by the respondents by passing a separate order ignoring all previous orders, then the respondents may pay regular salary to the petitioner from the date of joining the duties on the said post without waiting for any other formalities. However, if the respondents want to take any action against the petitioner for his not joining the posting/duties since the year 2004, then they are free to take action in accordance with law then the payment of arrears of salary shall depend upon the result of that proceeding for which this Court is not passing any order in the present facts and circumstances as the petitioner admittedly is not working on any post. In case department is not intending to take action against the petitioner on this count within one month from today, they shall pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner within one month thereafter. 25. The relief sought for by the petitioner for other orders in the facts of the case also devoid of any merit and such technical objections only give opportunity to the petitioner not to discharge the duties on the post and nothing more. 26. Since the petitioner's writ petition has been dismissed on merit after taking note of petitioner's contention with respect to the non-compliance of the order dated 29.09.2008 and in above facts and circumstances by the respondents who moved application for recalling or modifying the interim order dated 29.09.2008 it cannot be treated to be act of willful disobedience of this Court's order with intention to lower down the authority or prestige of this Court but it appears that the respondents had no option but to approach this Court for modification of the order, therefore, the contempt proceedings are dropped and notices are discharged. 27. The interim orders are vacated and the other Interlocutory Applications also stand disposed of in view of the final order passed in the writ petition and contempt petition.