- (1.) D. P. Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anil Bhushan for opposite party No. 4. Sri S. M. A. Kazmi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for opposite parties No. 3 and 5.
(2.) THE applicant was appointed on a fixed salary as 'farrash' on class IV post in a Intermediate College, Allahabad, duly recognized and aided institution on 27-10-1959. He was appointed as a regular peon w. e. f 1-8-1973 and his date of birth as recorded in the service book was 13-7-1944. However, he was restrained from functioning as such by the College w. e. f. 13-7-1994 treating as date of birth as 13-7- 1934. He made a representation to the District Inspector of Schools against the aforesaid action of the College. THE District Inspector of Schools after enquiry, held by Order, dated 29-11-1994 that the date of birth of the applicant was 13-7-1944. This order was subjected to a challenge by the management in writ petition No. 2022 of 1995. After exchange of pleadings the writ Court dismissed the writ petition and issued the following direction vide its judgment and order dated 21-2-2000: "for the reasons given above, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. THE petitioner and respondent No. 3 are directed to reinstate the respondent No. 4 in service and pay his entire arrears of salary within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the respondent No. 3. " However, against the order of the learned Single Judge a Special Appeal No. 295 of 2000 was filed by the management but the same was also dismissed by an order dated 19-4-2000. As the order was not complied, the present contempt petition has been filed. In the petition it is alleged that the order of the learned Single Judge was served on the management and so also on the District Inspector of Schools II, vide covering letter dated 28-3-2000 which was received in the office of the District Inspector of Schools II, on 30-3-2000. After dismissal of the Special Appeal, the orders were again served on the Management and also the District Inspector of Schools II. The Management on its part reinstated the applicant on 30-7-2000 in compliance of the orders, but in spite of sufficient knowledge and service his salary, either current or arrears were not released by the District Inspector of Schools II.
(3.) UPON issuance of notice Smt. Santwana Tiwari, the then District Inspector of Schools II, filed her counter affidavit alongwith an application dated 30-4-2001 stating that the applicant has already been reinstated and the matter for payment of salary has been referred to the State Government by the Directorate and the payment is liable to be made within 15 days. In her counter affidavit filed alongwith the application dated 18-7-2001 she has stated that vide letter dated 19-6-2000 the Principal had already been informed that the guidelines have been sought from the Directorate vide her letter dated 9-5-2000 and after receipt of the same further action could be taken. She has further stated on oath that by letters dated 2-7-2001 and 5-7-2001 the entire wage bills of the applicant had been sent to the Accounts Officer for verification. Thereafter, she was transferred on 11-7-2001. Smt. Farhana Siddiqui was posted in her place, thus she was impleaded and notices were issued to her. In the counter affidavit of Smt. Siddiqui filed alongwith the application dated 3-9-2003 she has stated that directions had been issued to the Accounts Officer to release the salary of the applicant vide letters dated 22-7-2003 and 30-7-2003 but as she was not the Drawing and Disbursing Authority she could do nothing in the matter.;