JUDGMENT By the Court.—This contempt appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 9.11.1995 passed in Contempt Petition No. 1070 of 1991 (Ramesh Chandra Srivastava v. J.R. Chaudhary, Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute District Ballia and others. 2. The contempt Court under the order in appeal has held the appellant namely Vijay Kumar Srivastava guilty of deliberate disobedience of the interim order passed by the writ Court in Writ Petition No. 13902 of 1991 which reads as follows : “Issue notice. Meanwhile, the operation of the impugned order dated 19.4.1991 shall remain stayed.” 3. It has been recorded that the earlier incumbent to the office of the Principal, (namely, Mr. J.R. Chaudhary), Government Industrial Training Institute District Ballia complied with the interim order and passed an specific order on 13.5.1991 in favour of the writ-petitioner. The contemnor Vijay Kumar Srivastava, however on joining as Principal of the same Institute on 9.7.1993 had refused work vide order dated 6.11.1993 to the writ-petitioner. It has been recorded that it was within the powers of the Principal to appoint a daily wager and he had deliberately circumvented the interim order of the writ Court. It has been further recorded that there has been no attempt by the appellant-contemnor to get the interim order dated 2.5.1991, nullified modified or vacated. The camouflage of seeking approval of opposite party No. 1 in the matter of compliance of the interim order of this Court has not been accepted. The Court has noticed that a counter-affidavit had been filed in the matter as early as on 9.3.1994. It has lastly been recorded that no apology has been tendered nor any attempt was made to explain the conduct. On these findings, it has been held that there has been wilful disobedience of the interim order amounting to civil contempt. 4. Learned contempt Court has found it just and proper to impose a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo civil imprisonment for two weeks. 5. Not being satisfied with the order of the contempt Court, Vijay Kumar Srivastava has filed this appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 6. Learned contempt Court has found it just and proper to impose a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo civil imprisonment for two weeks. 5. Not being satisfied with the order of the contempt Court, Vijay Kumar Srivastava has filed this appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 6. A Division Bench of this Court while entertaining the present contempt appeal has been pleased to stay the operation of the judgment of the contempt Court. On behalf of the appellant, it is contended that a counter-affidavit alongwith an application for vacating the interim order was filed on behalf of the respondent as early as in May 1992. It is then contended that admittedly the writ-petitioner was a daily wager meaning thereby his employment started in the morning and come to end with the end of working hours. Therefore, stay of an order putting an end to the services on a daily wager will not amount to a direction to take work again and again in the coming days from the writ-petitioner. Even otherwise it is stated that once the Contempt Court may made aware of the pendency of the stay vacation application then the proper course to be adopted by the contempt Court was to await the disposal of the stay vacation application instead of punishing the appellant for contempt for the alleged disobedience of ex parte interim order. Reference is also made to Article 226 sub clause (3) of the Constitution of India which according to the writ-petitioner by necessary implication leads to the conclusion that interim order had lost its life because of non disposal of stay vacation application within the time specified. 7. We have been informed that the writ petition has finally been disposed of as per report supplied by the Computer Section of Allahabad High Court, copy whereof is kept on record. 8. 7. We have been informed that the writ petition has finally been disposed of as per report supplied by the Computer Section of Allahabad High Court, copy whereof is kept on record. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having examined the status of the writ-petitioner, i.e., a daily wager as well as to the nature of interim order granted in his favour and the fact that the stay vacation application with counter-affidavit was pending since 1992, and keeping in mind Article 226 sub clause (3) of the Constitution of India, we are of the considered opinion, that it would have been more appropriate for the contempt Court to have awaited the disposal of the stay vacation application before holding the appellant guilty of contempt of the ex parte interim order. No litigant may be heard to say that on one hand the High Court is not considering his Stay vacation application for years and on the other hand, he is being punished for wilful disobedience of an ex parte stay order. 9. In the totality of the circumstances on record, we feel it just and proper to hold that there has been no wilful disobedience of interim order of the Court, in the facts of the case. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge cannot be legally sustained. 10. Accordingly, the order holding the appellant to be guilty of contempt as well as imposing fine of Rs. 2000/- cannot be legally sustained. Order dated 9.11.1995 is hereby set aside. This appeal stands allowed.