- (1.) G. S. N. Tripathi, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19133 of 1991 was filed by Dr. Subhas Chandra, petitioner on 17. 7. 91 with a prayer that court may issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus com manding respondents-authorities to pay the petitioner the entire arrears of salary with in the time limit prescribed by the court and further to direct them to go on paying his salary and allowances, for which he is en titled to as a Lecturer, under the provisions of law and further he wanted a writ, direc tion or order in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Principal-respondent No. 5 not to interfere with the functioning of the petitioner as a Lecturer in Sri Bhola Nath Sarraf Inter College, Jagner, Agra and dis charge of the duties attached thereto in any manner. The main allegation are that in the aforesaid college, both girls and boys get education up to Intermediate. The U. P. Madhyamic Siksha Sewa Ayog finally selected the petitioner as a Lecturer on 7. 8. 84 in the Economics Deptt. He joined his duties, but that too, as a result of his filing writ Petition No. 2059 of 1985, in which a mandamus was issued on 15. 12. 85. The Court directed the Committee of Management of the said Institution and its Manager to issue the letter of appointment in pursuance of the recommendation made by the Commission with in two weeks from the date of the order. But respondents No. 2 to 4 did not issue the appointment letter. Then a contempt petition was moved and by virtue of the Court's order, he was allowed to join as a Lecturer in Economics w. e. f. 23. 6. 85. Respondents put every possible hurdles to dissuade the petitioner from joining or leaving the college soon after joining. The petitioner completed his probation without any blemish but the Prin cipal did not recommend for his promotion till the date of filing of the petition. The petitioner stood confirmed ipso facto w. e. f. 23. 3. 86. The respondents tried to put hindrance on numerous occasions and the petitioner had to move police and other authorities of law to rescue him from the onslaught of the respondents. The petitioner did not voluntarily agree in the respondents efforts to grab the money of the College and students, therefore, they with held his salary w. e. f. February, 1991. Despite several efforts, they did not release his salary. Even some physical assualts on him took place. Due to personal work, the petitioner took 10 days' leave. But on return on 30. 4. 91 he was not permitted to join his duties. On 5. 5. 91, the respondents tried to physically assault the petitioner.
(2.) THE joint account of the college is being operated signgly by the District In spector of Schools (D. I. O. S. ). THE D. I. O. S directed on 30. 7. 91 to the Principal of the college to prepare his bills and send to him (D. I. O. S.) for passing. Even then, respon dents did not yield. THErefore, the petitio ner had to file that writ petition. THE peti tion prayed in the stay application that the interim order restraining the Principal of Sri Bhola Nath Sarraf Inter College, Jagner, Agra be passed, not to interfere in the func tioning of the petitioner as a Lecturer in the aforesaid college and further direct them to pay the petitioner the entire arrears of salary and pay him his regular salary in fu ture with in the time specified by this Court. On 26. 8. 91 the court ordered the respondents to pay the entire amount of salary and other allowances due to the petitioners till date with in a month of the presentation of a certified copy of this Court's order. They were further directed to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties as a Lecturer. That order was served on the respon dents legally, but they did not comply with the Court's order. Hence this contempt petition dated 13. 4. 86 was moved by the petitioner on 17. 6. 96.
(3.) IN this contempt petition, which is directed against Sri Ram Prakash Pal, Ac counts Officer in the Office of the D. I. O. S. , Agra, when he joined his duties in the month of July, 1995, his attention was in vited to the High Court's order calling upon him to release the salary of the petitioner. The D. I. O. S. vide his letter dated 28. 11. 95, clearly directed the respondents to pay regularly the salary of the petitioner and its arrears. Thus complying with the order of the High Court the D. I. O. S. directed the respondent aforesaid to make payments to the petitioner. But he did not relent. Several reminders were sent to him. However the salary from March, 1994 to October, 1994 was paid on 10. 1. 95 by the predecessor of the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner is regularly submitting his salary bill. But that has not been passed by the respondents. This way, the respondent has been deliberately disobeying this Court's order. , Hence he should be punished for commit ting the contempt of this Court. In his counter affidavit dated 22. 7. 96, the respondent admits that he took over charge as an Accounts Officer in the office of the D. I. O. S. , Agra in July, 1995 and since then, he is discharging his duties as such. Since he was not a party to the main writ petition and no direction was given to him by the High Court, therefore he feels that he is not bound by that order. Further, he has alleged that the bills for payment along with the certificate of the petitioner's doing his duty, shall be sent by the Principal, duly counter signed by the Manager, then only he may start complying with the order of this court. In absence of this recommen dation by the Principal as well as Manager of the Institution, he could do nothing. In absence of said order by the D. I. O. S. , the payment of the petitioner was stopped since November, 1994 and an order was passed by the D. I. O. S. on 28. 11. 95 endorsing its copy to the Principal as well as Manager. Immedi ately after receiving this letter dated 28. 11. 95 from the D. I. O. S. , the deponent directed the Principal and the Manager of the Institution in question to prepare the salary bills of the petitioner according to the rules. They did not comply Then the respondent brought this fact to the notice of the D. I. O. S seeking further instructions from him. He admits that the Institutions' accounts were being singly operated by the D. I. O. S. Since proper instructions had not been issued by the D. I. O. S. , 'here fore, respondent has been unable to comply with the Court's order.;