Court No. - 59
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1566 of 2010 Applicant :- Bharat Lal Sharma Opposite Party :- Sri Sanjay Mohan, Director Of Education (Secondary) & Others Counsel for Applicant :- K.P. Shukla,Anand Kumar Singh,Anurag Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and Shri K.R.Singh, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
This petition alleges non-compliance with the directions issued by the writ Court on 13.01.2010 commanding the concerned District Inspector of Schools to ensure that the order passed by him on 25.08.2008 is complied with and the salary paid to the petitioner. It also bears mention that on an earlier occasion the applicant had instituted Writ Petition No. 32243 of 1992 which was disposed of on 01.05.1998 with the observation that the respondents will pay salary to the applicant regularly w.e.f. 17.01.1991 provided he was working in the institution.
The communication of the District Inspector of Schools dated 25.08.2008 had called upon the Management to produce all relevant record with respect to the working of the applicant from 17.01.1991 to 11.03.1999.
In the compliance affidavit filed by the opposite parties it has been stated that since there was a serious dispute with regard to the working of the applicant and since the Management itself was denying a valid appointment having been made in his favour or that he was discharging duties during the period in question, a Committee was constituted on 01.05.2010. The Committee after going through the relevant records as well as the letter of the Management of the institution found that the applicant had not worked in the college in question during the period 17.01.1991 to 11.03.1999.
It is also not disputed that the salary payable to the applicant post 1999 has in fact been released. The issue of whether the applicant worked during the period January, 1991 to March 1999 are clearly disputed questionsof fact and in the absence of any material which may demonstrate that the recommendations framed by the Committee are factually incorrect, this Court finds no ground to proceed in the matter any further.
Reference may also be had to the fact that although the High Court had commanded the District Inspector of Schools to proceed in the matter in accordance with his communication of 2008, a careful perusal of the said communication clearly establishes that no findings as such with respect to the working of the applicant during the period in question were recorded therein.
In fact the communication of 2008 does not and cannot possibly be read as a final adjudication on the issue since at that stage the District Inspector of Schools had merely called for the records from the Management. A decision on the alleged working of the applicant during the period in question was thus yet to be finalized.
In view of the aforesaid this Court finds no ground to continue these proceedings in contempt. The contempt petition is dismissed. The notices stand discharged.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 VR