Dilip Kumar Seth, J. - (1.) THE primary Branch which was in integral part of Madan Mohan Malviya Intermediate College, Bhatpar Rani, District Deoria was recognised for payment of salary of teachers under the U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 ('1971 Act' for short), alongwith 392 other such Primary Schools by Government Order dated 6th September, 1989 (Annexure -'7'). Names of 24 teachers including those of the petitioners were forwarded pursuant to the said Government Order dated 6th September, 1989 ('said G.O.' for short). Though the responsibility for payment of salary under the 1971 Act of some of the teachers were accepted by the Government pursuant to the said G.O., but those of the petitioners were neither accepted nor declined. But, however, the petitioners have not been paid their salaries despite their being teachers working in the said school on the date of the said GO. All successive representations made by the petitioners proved futile. Therefore, by means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for a mandamus commanding the respondents to pay salary to the petitioners with effect from 1st October, 1989 month by month and continue to do so, Mr. T.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, points out that on an earlier occasion, an interim mandamus was issued requiring the respondents to pay to the petitioners salary and the same was made absolute ultimately. By order dated 20th July, 1995 this Court proposed to issue a suo motu contempt. Mr. Tiwari therefore, invited this Court to pass appropriate order in the contempt matter. Mr. B.K. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 contends that the petitioners have made a separate application for contempt which is pending. The said fact is not disputed by Mr. Tiwari. Admittedly the writ petition has given rise to a different proceeding though emanated from the present one. The contempt petition has not been placed before this Court. Therefore, the prayer of Mr. Tiwari can not be acceded to. On the other hand, the main writ petition has been placed for hearing before this Court. When asked as to whether the learned counsel for the petitioner proposed to pray for an adjournment of the hearing of this case, both. Mr. Tiwari and Mr. Singh Agreed that the matter may be taken up for hearing and disposed of finally.
(2.) IN fact the disposal of the present writ petition may not have any effect on the contempt proceedings if the alleged contemnors are guilty of contempt on account of their contumacious conduct committed in between. The question is left wholly at the discretion of the Court deciding the contempt matter. Therefore, as agreed by both the learned counsels, in my view, there is no impediment in proceeding with the hearing of the matter and disposing of the same. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, relies on the statement made in the counter affidavit and contends that the names of the petitioners were not available in any of the list of teachers forwarded by the school authorities to the District Inspector of Schools ('DIOS' for short) for reimbursement of grant in aid till 1986 -87. According to the statement made in the counter affidavit, these petitioners were never appointed as teachers in the said school. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioners were appointed and were paid salary by the school authorities. He further contends that there were only 348 students. According to the ratio of teacher and taught, there can not be any question of appointing more than 9 teachers. But, however, initially after enquiry, only appointment of 7 teachers were accepted by the Government under the said G.O. After two other teachers obtained an order by invoking writ jurisdiction got their case considered through an enquiry held by the DIOS pursuant to which their cases were also accepted. Similarly the case of another teacher was also accepted by the DIOS after holding enquiry. Now there are 10 teachers in the school which is more than sufficient in comparison with the number of students. The DIOS had enquired into the matter and could not find anything to support the acceptance of the petitioners as teachers working in the said school for the purpose of saddling the Government with the responsibility of payment of salary to these petitioners under the said G.O. He has also pointed out to annexures in order to support his contention. According to him, the writ petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) MR . Tiwari, on the other hand, contends that in the list of teachers seeking reimbursement of salary for the years 1987 -88, 1988 -89 and 1989 -90, the names of the petitioners were included and that such lists were not only signed by the Principal but also was signed by the Assistant Inspector of Schools and that there were more than 800 students as has been indicated in the said Annexures. He vehemently argues that since the petitioners were employed in the school and were working on the date of the said G.O., the petitioners were eligible to and the Government is liable for the payment of salary to those teachers in terms of the said Government order. He also relied upon various annexures in order to support his contention.;