N. L.Ganguly, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner filed the present application under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for taking action against Smt. Vimal Kumar, Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Agra (RIGS, in short) and others. The four other persons, namely, the District Inspector of Schools, Mathura, the Education Secretary, U. P. Government, the Additional Director of Education, Office of the Director of Education, Allahabad, were also named as respondents, by names, in this contempt petition, but the Court was pleased to issue notice only against Smt. Vimla Kumar and the other respondents were not issued notices. The petitioner stated to have been appointee as a Clerk on 4 -8 -1966 in the Chameli Devi Khandelwal Intermediate College, Mathura. On 6 -9 -1967 the management of the college took back the charge from the petitioner on the pretext that he would be assigned other duties but no duty was assigned to him thereafter. The petitioner filed representations before the educational authorities and the Director Education, Allahabad, by letter dated (Sic) also directed the management of the college to reinstate the petitioner which also had no effect on the management. The proceedings and the correspondence between the department of education and the college continued. The RIGS aforesaid by order dated 16 -9 -1985 said to have stated that the petitioners' victimisation was illegal and the petitioner was entitled for payment of salary. The order of the RIGS is also annexed as annexure -2 to the affidavit. Since the management had not paid emoluments due to the petitioner, the petitioner was compelled to file a writ petition No. 19131 of 1985 in December, 1985 and this Court was pleased to direct the respondents to pay the entire arrears of salary and permit the petitioner to resume duties. The, petitioner, although stated that the High Court decided and directed the respondents as aforesaid in favour of the petitioner to pay to the petitioner the salary and reinstatement, but, in fact, the copy of the order annexed as annexure -3 to the affidavit is otherwise. The High Court observed and directed as under: Having heard counsel for the petitioner we do not find the case as a fit one for giving any relief claimed. If the petitioner feels that he is entitled to get salary under the orders of the Regional Inspectress of Schools, Mathura, respondent No. 2, he may approach the Regional Inspectress of Schools, Mathura for making necessary orders. With the aforesaid observations, the said writ petition was disposed of summarily. Thereafter an application was moved on behalf of the petitioner for modification of the order mentioned above and it was to the effect that the RIGS should entertain the representation of the petitioner with regard to the payment of salary about which he has raised grievances in the petition and decide the same expeditiously. The petitioner stated to have moved a representation before the RIGS on 20 -8 -1986, although he had given two earlier representations in 1985 claiming the same relief. The State Government instead of approaching the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order of the High Court for deciding the representation of the petitioner, directed that it would not be desirable to file any Special Leave petition against the said order to the High Court. The direction was to decide the representation in accordance with the Court's directions in the order. The RIGS, respondent No. 1, did not comply with the order of the High Court dated 30 -7 -1986. The petitioner sent notice to the respondent for compliance of the aforesaid order of the High Court dated 30 -7 -1986. It is said that the RIGS and the D. I. O. S. did not comply with the aforesaid order and disobeyed the same, which amounts to cross misconduct and disobedience of the High Court's order. The respondent Smt Vimla Kumar, filed a counter -affidavit and controverted the allegations made in the petition. She stated that the petitioner was appointed by the management of the college as a clerk subject to the approval of the committee management and the RIGS, Agra. The respondent took over as the RIGS, Agra, on 10 -10 -1985. She had no information or knowledge about any representation sent to the RIGS/ropr tp jer talomg pver charge at Agra. The respondent stated in her counter -affidavit that the orders dated 16 -9 -1985 obtained by the petitioner from her predecessor RIGS, Agra, was obtained by concealing material facts. Ultimately the RIGS decided the representation on 25 -4 -1988 and recalled the order passed by the RIGS. The delay in deciding the representation was on account of want of relevant records from the management of the College. The order dated 30 -7 -1986 passed by the Division Bench of this Court also had not fixed any time limit for deciding the representation. Further, the respondent since was asking relevant material documents from the committee of management of the college, that consumed some time for giving the final orders. 1 he respondent stated that since the order of the High Court dated 39 -7 -1986 has been complied with and the representation has been duly decided. Thus, she stated, there is no cause of action for taking action in this contempt petition against her. The respondent has given specific details of the correspondence and letters sent by her to the management for supply the necessary documents and the manager of the college had shown inability to produce the said documents as they had already deposited the same in the civil suit pending before the Civil Court. In the circumstances the papers were not available and the matter could not be decided earlier by the respondent.
(2.) ALL contempts or noncompliance of the orders of the High Court or any Court are not always contemptuous. The necessary ingredient for any disobedience to be classed as 'contempt of Court's order is the element of willful disobedience and flouting of the same. Since from the record, it is abundantly clear that the respondent had taken all possible steps for procuring the necessary records to enable her to give an order on the representation, it cannot be said that the delay in the deciding 'the representation was deliberate and it was willful disobedience of the High Court's order. The fact that the record needed by the respondent for deciding the representation of the petitioner were already deposited in the Civil suit which could not be made available earlier which caused the delay. Thus, I am not satisfied that there was any willful deliberate disobedience of the High Court's order by the respondent. The facts of the present case are startling and material and important facts were concealed by the petitioner in the original writ petition as also in the contempt petition.
(3.) THE petitioner had filed a civil suit for payment of arrears of salary and reinstatement in the year 1973. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff -petitioner. A Civil appeal was filed being Civil Appeal No. 119 of 1976 by the management of the college which was allowed on 9 -11 -1979. A second appeal was also filed by the petitioner being Second Appeal No. 3103 of 1979 which too was dismissed by the High Court by order dated 10 -7 -1981. The review application was also filed which, too was dismissed on 8 -1 -1986. A Special Leave Petition No. 9410 of 1987 was dismissed on 6 -2 -1984. Thus, according to the judgment of the Civil Court confirmed by the highest court of the country decided the matter against the petitioner's claim and the petitioner was held not entitled to the salary and the suit was held to be heard by limitation. These facts had been concealed in the writ petition and the contempt petition.;