S.R.Singh - (1.) PRESENT is an appeal under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act directed against the order dated 13-5-93.
(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also having perused the facts on record, I am of the opinion that the order is not appealable in that it is not an order under section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act. The order in question reads as under : "Heard learned counsel of parties. Although this case is tied up with Hon. Justice S. C. Verma but his lordship has not come to the court. This case was taken,up in view of the personal presence of the respondents earlier ordered for today. Sri Uma Shanker Misra, Deputy Director (Sanskrit), U. P. Allahabad and Sri Awadh Narain Sharma are personally present in compliance of this Court's order dated 20-4-1993. Their personal presence on future dates is exempted. I have heard counsel for the parties including Sri Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel for the Committee of Management of Sri Param Hans Sanskrit Pathshala, C. K. 34/51, Saraswati Bhatak Lohori Tola Varanasi. The stand of Managing Committee that the services of the petitioner were terminated in the year 1979 as such he is not entitled for payment of salary does not appear to be correct in view of the order dated 23-1-1991 whereby it was held by the Vice Chancellor that services of petitioner had not been terminated according to law. In the circumstances, I direct the respondents to take immediate steps for ensuring the compliance of this court's order dated 24-8-1991. The Manager of the College Sri Vindhachal Upadhya is directed to submit petitioner's salary bill to the District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi within to weeks from today. The respondents shall ensure that the payment of petitioner's salary is made within one month from today. It is, however, made clear that salary will be paid only from the date when the college was included in the grant-in-aid list. No salary shall be payable for the period during which petitioner was absconding and had not worked as held wider order of the Vice Chancellor dated 23-1-1991. List for further orders on 26-7-1993." It is apparent from the order aforesaid that the learned Judge has only issued a direction for the compliance of the ex parte order dated 24-8-1991. The said order, in my opinion, is not an order under section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, High Court being a court of record under Article 215 of the Constitution of India can pass any order or direction which it may consider necessary to secure the ends of justice. The fact that the order aforesaid was passed by the learned Judge while sitting in contempt jurisdiction and on a contempt application will not make it an order under section 12 of the Contempt Court Act. The order aforesaid is no doubt an order passed by the learned Judge sitting in contempt jurisdiction but it is referable to inherent jurisdiction of the High Court preserved by Article 215 of the Constitution of India in M. V. Elisabeth's case, AIR 1993 SC 1015, it has been held by the Supreme Court as under :- "The High Courts in India are superior courts of record. They have original and appellate jurisdiction. Unless expressly or impliedly barred and subject to the appellate or discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, the High Courts have unlimited jurisdiction, including the jurisdiction to determine their own powers"........" In this view of the matter, the order aforesaid is not appealable under section 19 of the Contempt of Court Act, The learned counsel for the appellant has cited before me a decision of the Supreme court in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Mohd. Yaqoob Khan, 1992 (2) UP LB EC 1166 wherein, it has been held that so long as the stay matter in the writ petition was not finally disposed of, the further proceeding in the contempt case was misconceived and no orders therein should have been passed. As stated above, the direction issued by the learned Judge for compliance of the order dated 24-8-1991 is not referable to any provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Rather is referable to inherent power of the High Court as a court of record under Article 215 of the Constitution.
(3.) IN the light of the above discussions, the order impugned, in my opinion, is not appealable and accordingly the appeal fails and is dismissed. Before I pass it may be observed that during vacation the vacation Judge, according to Rule 10 of Chapter V of the High Court Rules, sifting singly can dispose of the matters cognizable by two or more Judges. Appeal dismissed.;