ILABEN NANJIBHAI CHOVATIYA Vs. USHABEN SANAKKUMAR PANDYA
LAWS(GJH)-2016-6-52
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on June 09,2016

Ilaben Nanjibhai Chovatiya Appellant
VERSUS
Ushaben Sanakkumar Pandya Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J. - (1.) The applicant has taken out this application invoking provisions of Contempt of Courts Act and sought following reliefs: "(A) Be pleased to admit this Misc. Civil Application. (B) Be pleased to initiate proceedings against the opponent nos. 1 to 3 herein under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for committing willful and deliberate contempt of the order dated 16.03.1999 passed by the learned Tribunal in Application No. 8 of 1995 and the order dated 19.08.2015 passed by the Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal at Ahmedabad in Execution Application No. 63 of 2014 (Old Execution Application No. 21 of 2004) and be pleased to punish the opponents herein for the same. (C) Be pleased to direct opponent nos. 1 to 3 to comply with the order dated 16.03.1999 passed by the learned Tribunal in Application No. 8 of 1995 and the order dated 19.08.2015 passed by the Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal at Ahmedabad in Execution Application No. 63 of 2014 (Old Execution Application No. 21 of 2004) with a view to purge the contempt of the order of this Honourable Court. (D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this application, be pleased to direct opponent nos. 1 to 3 to comply with the order dated dated 16.03.1999 passed by the learned Tribunal in Application No. 8 of 1995 and the order dated 19.08.2015 passed by the Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal at Ahmedabad in Execution Application No. 63 of 2014 (Old Execution Application No. 21 of 2004). (E) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
(2.) The facts, that could be gathered from the memo of application would require to be adverted in order to appreciate the controversy : The applicant was appointed as assistant teacher in primary section of opponent no.1 - school after following due procedure on 26.09.1978. That, the educational qualification of the applicant is C.P. Ed. The opponent school was not paying the salary to the applicant as per the government rules and regulations. Accordingly, the applicant has filed Application No. 8 of 1995 before the then Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short). That Tribunal on 16.3.1999, passed a final order and directed the opponent school to pay difference of salary on 22.5.1986 within three months and also directed the opponent school to pay regular salary to the applicant as per the Government Rules and Regulations. The Tribunal has also directed the opponent School to give copy of service book of the applicant to the applicant and also to give details of P.F and leave to the applicant. The said order passed by the Tribunal was not complied with. An Execution Application No. 21 of 2004 was filed by the applicant before the Tribunal. That, during the hearing of the said application, the Tribunal has directed opponent no.4 that if the school is not complying with the conditions of recognition than opponent no.4 should start proceedings for cancelling recognition of the school. That, pursuant to the said order passed by the Tribunal, the department has started procedure and then on hearing the concerned teachers, cancelled recognition of the school and the school has without following procedure terminated the services of the applicant by order dated 31.5.2005. That the said order of termination came to be challenged by the applicant by filing separate application before Application No. 46 of 2005 before the Tribunal and the said application was transferred to new Tribunal i.e. Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal and given number as Appeal No. 311 of 2014. That the said appeal, at present is pending before the Tribunal.
(3.) The facts as mentioned hereinabove unequivocally indicate that the applicant in fact has resorted to the remedy available under law namely the execution proceedings, as the execution application has already been filed. The counsel submitted that order passed in execution application not been implemented, would not add the cause of the applicant for maintaining this application. The applicant had in fact approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 4665 of 2016, which he had withdrawn, as could be seen from order dated 28.03.2016.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.