JUDGMENT Sunil Ambwani, J.
1. This contempt petition has been filed by petitioner informing this Court that order dated 5.2.1998, passed in Writ Petition No. 20178 of 1989 quashing the impugned order dated 19.9.1989 and directing that the petitioner shall be regularised as teacher of classes VI, VII and VIII with all consequential benefits.
2. It is alleged in the contempt petition that petitioner is a teacher in Intermediate College known as U. P. State Cement Corporation Inter College, managed and run by State Cement Corporation Ltd., Dala Cement Factory, Dala, district, Sonbhadra. He has been working and taking the classes VI to X in the college for several years but was being treated as teacher, belonging to basic sections of the college and was not absorbed in C.T. grade which was converted into L.T. grade from 1989. A writ petition was filed by him which was allowed with the aforesaid directions.
3. Petitioner served a copy of order along with representations dated 26.3.1999 and 20.8.1999 but no action was taken. He is still being paid the salary permissible to basic section inspite of service of order upon the respondents which amounts to wilful contempt of the order passed by this Court.
4. Notices were issued on 23.11.2000 directing the petitioner to delete the name of Sri J. P. Rai, Joint Director of Education, Mlrzapur Region, Mirzapur, who, according to the Court, was unnecessarily impleaded as a party in the matter. Notices were issued on 6.8.2002 directing Sri Kalp Nath Rai, District Inspector of Schools, Sonbhadra, to be present on 16.8.2002 to explain his position and for framing of charges.
5. A counter-affidavit of Sri Kalp Nath Rai, District Inspector of Schools, Sonbhadra, has been filed stating that Cement Factory Inter College is established and running after recognition of Intermediate Education Board U. P. Cement Corporation Dala, district Sonbhadra and the services of its employees are regulated by U. P. Cement Corporation Limited Employee Service, 1977 and the payment is being made under Wage Board Niyamawali. The institution is exempted from Section 13 of Payment of Salary Act and that only 'Anuraksha Anudan' is given upto the High School for payment of salary. Petitioner was appointed as an Urdu Teacher in Primary School, Dala, which have a different status to the Intermediate Education and the respondents are not responsible for the internal compromise between the Corporation and its employees. The District Inspector of Schools, Sonbhadra, gave a statement to the Court that the subject-matter has to be referred to the Director of Education.
6. Sri Yogesh Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, submits that the institution is receiving the maintenance grant and has relied upon a statement of salary filed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18174 of 2000. The record of the writ petition was summoned in which petitioner's name found place at serial No. 35 but has been scored out by the Manager of the college from the salary bill. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, the order of this Court has not been complied with and that the petitioner has been discriminated as against other teachers of secondary education in the same school.
7. On 24.4.2002, the Court found that the U. P. Cement Corporation has been wound up in December, 1998 and the proceedings for sale/rehabilitation of the entire assets of the company is pending in special appeal in this Court. The official liquidator, representing the company (in liquidation) informed that company court has passed a detailed order on 6.2.2002 directing that the Cement Factory Inter College, Chunar, be also considered on priority to be brought in the grant-in-aid list. Under the circumstances, the Court awaited the response from the Secretary of Education and adjourned the matter to be listed in the 2nd week of July, 2002. On 16.8.2002, the Court find that the matter with regard to the payment of salary of teachers required consideration at the secretary level. Once again. Sri Kalp Nath Rai appeared in Court on 24.9.2002 in person and informed the Court that the orders have not been complied with as the matter has been referred to the Education Secretary (Madhyamik), U. P., Lucknow. Since considerable delay has been caused, the Court directed that the notices be issued to the Education Secretary (Madhyamik), U. P., to be present in Court along with the record of the case on 21.10.2002. On the next date, a short adjournment was sought and today, i.e., 12.11.2002, when the matter was taken up, Sri Mukul Singhal, Education Secretary (Madhyamik) U. P. appeared in person before the Court.
8. Sri Mukul Singhal, Education Secretary (Madhyamik), U. P., informed the Court that the State is not liable for payment of salary but it only provides assistance to the colleges in secondary education. The college was being run by the U. P. State Cement Corporation. The staffing pattern and condition of service was regulated by the Corporation. He informs that petitioner had not impleaded the educational authorities in the writ petition and thus full and correct facts have not been disclosed to the Court. In the writ petition, the parties impleaded included the officers and employees of U. P. State Cement Corporation with its unit at Dala district Sonbhadra and the Principal of the College. Petitioner may have been allowed to take classes by the Management of Corporation but such action do not have any approval of the authorities of education department. The State has not taken any liability with regard to the payment of petitioner's salary. The Corporation may have given the liberty for taking classes of VI, VII and VIII for which the department cannot be held responsible. According to him the State Government is not liable to pay the salary of petitioner and that if there is liability, it is of the Management of Corporation which was an autonomous body.
9. Sri Yogesh Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner must be paid the salary on the principles of equal pay for equal work. Petitioner was allowed to work in higher classes since, 1983. The permission was granted. The educational authorities were fully aware of the petitioner's work and that maintenance grant includes the salary of teachers. Petitioner is being discriminated and that the State Administration cannot shirk its responsibility for ensuring to provide the resources for payment of salary. It is for the administration to find out the ways and means for securing the funds for the purpose. He has relied upon a decision of Supreme Court in Chandigarh Administration and Ors. v. Mrs. Rajni Vali and Ors. 2000 (1) ESC 583. for the above propositions and has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in 1990 UPLBEC 1221 and the judgment of Supreme Court in AIR 1970 SC 1767 for the propositions that the Court can execute its order in contempt Jurisdiction.
10. The disobedience of order can be punished under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, if it is knowingly and wilfully disobeyed. Petitioner did not care to implead the educational authorities in the writ petition and thus full facts could not been brought to the notice of the Court. The college is being run by an autonomous body and was exempted from the Payment of Salaries Act, 1971. The order in the writ petition is binding only on the respondents who were impleaded in the writ petition. The Corporation has been wound up and is under liquidation. It has complied with the order by permitting petitioner and allowing him to take classes VI, VII and VIII. The responsibility of payment of salary is of the Corporation. The educational authorities cannot be compelled to pay the salary to petitioner as the approval was not taken before petitioner was allowed to take higher classes and that staffing pattern was not approved by them. The petitioner was teaching under a contract with the Corporation and thus the liability of payment of salary cannot be saddled upon educational authorities.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I cannot hold the respondents guilty of wilfully and knowingly disobeying the orders of the Court. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed and notices issued are discharged.
12. The record of writ petition be detached and be listed separately.