P.P.Gupta, J. - (1.) THE Committee of Management. Guru Tegh Bahadur Public School, Meerut, runs a Public School known as Guru Tegh Bahadur Public School, Meerut Cantt., Meerut (Hereinafter referred to as the 'School'). It is a private unaided school. This school is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'CBSE' and is a recognised institution.
(2.) THE petitioner, Mrs. Harbans Kaur, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the School on 2-7-1978 to teach Primary Sections. She was confirmed as Teacher on 27-11-91. In view of the good work and teaching experience of the petitioner, she was appointed as Teacher in T.G.T. grade with effect from 2-4-1985 on regular basis by the Committee of Management of the aforesaid school. All along, she discharged her duties as teacher satisfactorily. On 11-9-1990, she was served with a letter terminating services on the grounds that her work was unsatisfactory and that she did not posses requisite qualifications for the post. She was never served with any charge-sheet and was also not afforded any opportunity to show-cause against the termination order. In the circumstances, as alleged by the petitioner, the termination order was illegal. It also casts a stigma on the petitioner. This termination order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 32647 of 1990. In the aforesaid writ petition, the operation of the termination order dated 11-9-1990 was stayed by this Court on 11-12-1990. The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that though she served the certified copy of the stay order upon the respondents on 20-12-1990, she was never reinstated nor was paid her salary. The respondents filed a counter affidavit in response to the notices issued to them by this Court. The main plea of the respondents is that by the interim order dated 11-12-1930 although the impugned order of termination dated 11-9-1990 was stayed, but it was left open to the respondents either to take or not to take work from the petitioner as Music teacher. They did not take any work from the petitioner and so they were under a bona fide belief that if no work was taken from the petitioner, no salary need be paid to her. It was under this bona fide belief that she was not paid any salary. Further on 15-1-1992, the entire salary due to the petitioner up to 30-12-1991 was deposited in her account. There was no wilful disobedience on their part and in any case they tendered unconditional apology also.
(3.) IN the rejoinder affidavit the fact that the respondents deposited the entire salary due to her up to 31-12-1991 was not disputed. The learned counsel for both the parties were theard and the record of the case was also perused. ";