PER G.T.NANAVATI, J. - (1.) The petitioners have filed this application, under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging that respondent No.1 has been wilfully disobeying the judgment and order passed by this Court on 30-6-1982 in Special Civil Application No.1 146/82. As respondent No.1 died, Shri Harshadkumar Narmadashanker Raval -the New Managing Trustee of the School has been joined as respondent No.1. It is the case of the petitioners that though this Court held in Special Civil Application No. 1146/82 that termination of the services of the petitioners by orders dated 1-10-1981 is null and void, respondent No.1 - Trust is not permitting them to continue in service and is not paying the arrears of their salary as directed by this Court. It is true that this Court in Special Civil Application No.1 146/82 declared the orders of termination of services of the petitioners dated 1-10-81 as null and void and also directed the present respondent No. 1 - Trust to pay arrears of the petitioners' salary within a period of two months from the date of the judgment. The petitioners ought to have been permitted by respondent No.1 - Trust to continue in service and paid the arrears of their salary as directed by this Court.
(2.) In the reply affidavit, respondent No.1 has pointed out that the salary of the petitioners upto May, 1982 has been paid by respondent No.1 - Trust. Though it is not made clear as to whether arrears of salary were paid within two months as directed by this Court, we do not think that any serious view is required to be taken on that count because respondent No.1 - Trust has already now paid the arrears of salary. As regards the complaint that respondent No.1 is not permitting them to continue in service, it is pointed out by respondent No.1 in his reply affidavit that in view of the compromise dated 21-3-1982, the petitioners' services stood terminated with effect from 31-5-1982. Respondent No.1 has further pointed out why it had become necessary for respondent No.1 to close the school and terminate the services of the petitioners. It also appears from the reply affidavit that respondent No.1 had asked for the approval of the Administrative Officer and he did grant the same on 15/16-10-1982 though conditionally on payment of arrears of salary and compensation. According to respondent No.1 because of the compromise nothing is required to be paid to the petitioners.
(3.) Even if we proceed on the basis that in view of the order passed by the Administrative Officer, respondent No.1 is required to pay to the petitioners the arrears of salary upto 15th October 1982 and also compensation, we do not think that any action is required to be taken for nonpayment of the said amount in view of the financial condition of respondent No.1. It is pointed out that respondent No.1 has no funds and is not capable of paying either the arrears of salary or compensation as directed by the Administrative Officer. It is not shown by the petitioners that the statement regarding the inability of respondent No.1 is not correct. Therefore, even if we proceed on the basis that the petitioners continued in service and that they were required to be paid their salary upto 15-10-1982 and also compensation as per the order of the Administrative Officer, no action deserves to be taken against respondent No.1 in view of the fact that it is not capable of discharging its obligation. It cannot be said that respondent No.1 is intentionally flouting the order of this Court. It has not complied with the order of this Court and the order of the Administrative Officer because of its inability to do so. For these reasons Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Rule discharged ;