- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. An educational institution known as Kali Charan Bal Vidya Mandir is being run by Kali Charan Vidyalaya Endowment Trust. The provisions of the U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972 were applicable to the institution. The present applicant who was working as a teacher in the said institution filed a writ petition No. 3180 of 1981 on the allegation that she used to be appointed in the month of July up to 30th of June of the next year. Her services used to be terminated by the Management to avoid the payment of salary for the holidays. It was stated that she was not allowed to work as teacher after 30th of June, 1989 which led to the filing of the afore stated writ petition. In the counter affidavit a stand was taken by the Committee of Management that the power of appointment vests in the Selection Committee and the petitioner was not ap pointed through Selection Committee. The Court, however, quashed the order of termination and directed the opposite parties therein to take the petitioner back in service and deal her case according to law. It was further directed that the salary of the petitioner shall be paid by the opposite parties. The operative portion of the judgement is reproduced below: "consequently the order of termination is hereby quashed and the oppo site parties are directed to take her back in service and deal her case accord ing to law. It is further directed that salary of the petitioner will be paid by the opp. parties. No order as to costs. "
(2.) ARMED with the judgment of this Court the petitioner approached the insti tution and gave her joining on 5th of March, 1990. The further averment in the present contempt petition is that the petitioner regularly went to the school but she was not allowed to sign the attendance register and thus the opposite parties have disobeyed the aforestated judgement of this Court dated 5. 2. 1990. In re sponse to the notice issued on the contempt petition number of counter affidavits have been filed by the opposite parties. In the counter affidavit of opposite party No. 2 Shri Gopal Das Mehrotra, the manager of the institution, besides the other pleas, it is stated that in spite of the fact that the petitioner had reported duty, she came to school on 6th of March, 1990,13th of March, 1990,14thofmarch, 1990 and lastly on 15th of March, 1990. She abstained herself from attending school since 16th of March, 1990. It has been further stated that the judgment of this Court has been complied with. In the counter affidavit filed by Shri K. N. Tandon, the Principal of Kali Charan Degree College, it has been stated that he has no concern with the present dispute. In para 12 of the counter affidavit, however, it has been stated that the petitioner on her own showing has worked up to 15th of March, 1990. So far as the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and District Inspector of Schools are concerned, they have passed the buck on each other. It may be placed on record that the institution in question came on grant-in-aid list in October, 1989 i. e. before the decision in writ petition. The teachers who were working in the institution are now getting salary from the State Govern ment. The stand of the District inspector of Schools is that since the matter relates to the period when the institution was not on the grant-in-aid list, the matter requires to be looked into by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari. On the other hand, the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari submits that since the institution has come on the grant-in-aid list, the question of payment of salary is to be considered by the District Inspector of Schools as per the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. However, these authorities have also taken stand that the petitioner has not worked even for a single day in the institution after 15th of March, 1990.
(3.) IT may also be noted that in the meantime the petITioner has reached the age of superannuation. Before proceeding further by way of clarification it may be added that there is no lis between the parties with regard to the payment of arrears of salary for the period up to 15th of March, 1990. It has been stated by the Committee of Man agement that the arrears of salary up to 15th of March, 1990 have been paid by the Committee of Management from their own resources and the petitioner also in her rejoinder affidavit has accepted that she has received a sum of Rs. 34. 000/ -. During the course of argument the learned counsel for the petitioner also stated clearly that the dispute in the present contempt petition is confined so far as it relates to the period subsequent to 15th of March, 1990 till the date of superan nuation of the petitioner.;