(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. The applicant appears in person. He has filed this contempt petition alleging that the authorities and in particular, respondent No.1 Director of Primary Education has not complied with the direction contained in an order dated 12.7.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6198 of 2011.
2. From the record, however, we find that all that the learned Single Judge provided in the said order was to direct the Director of Primary Education to reconsider the representation of the petitioner sympathetically and then to pass appropriate reasoned order within three months from the date of receipt of copy of representation. Learned Single Judge in fact opined that the petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits.
3. The applicant himself has produced at Annexure-2-B communication dated 4.2.2012 by which the applicant was communicated decision of the authorities that there is no scope for reconsidering the previous decision (which was adverse to him).
4. The applicant contended that the decision of the authority is wholly illegal. He is entitled to pension and other benefits which are illegally withheld.
5. Such disputes would not be covered within the purview of the contempt court. Once the authority has taken decision, even if the same is legally disputable, no question of disregard or disobedience of the order of the Court arises.
6. In that view of the matter, this contempt petition is disposed of, with liberty to the applicant to challenge the decision of the authority in accordance with law.
7. Resultantly, this contempt petition is disposed of. Copy of order may be supplied to the applicant today.
(Akil Kureshi,J.) (C.L.Soni,J.) an vyas Top