(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) The applicants are teachers in the educational institution run by respondent no.3 trust. Respondents no. 3.1 and 3.2 are the Secretary and President respectively of the said trust. The applicants filed this contempt petition complaining that such respondents though had received money from the Central Government through the State Government for disbursement to the applicants, same was not done for a long time.
In response to the notice issued, said respondents initially appeared through their learned advocate Shri N.V. Solanki. Midway through the hearing, he was replaced by learned counsel Ms. Trusha Patel. Through the said counsel, they also filed affidavit dated 13.4.2012.
Basic facts are not in dispute. Said respondents had received a total sum of Rs.15,34,876/-. They did not release such amount in favour of the teachers. Concerned teachers therefore, had to start proceedings before this Court. One Civil Application No.1229/2011 in Special Civil Application No.2096/2010 came to be disposed of by Learned Single Judge on 28.3.2012. Learned Single Judge directed as under :
"7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, and in view of the clear directions contained in order dated 27.10.2010 for payment of salary; and as the amount of salary has already been disbursed by the Central Government to the State Government and from the State Government to respondent No.3, no further order is required to be passed save and except, to direct respondent No.3 to disburse the amount of salary of the applicants to the applicants, forthwith. It is so directed. The salary be disbursed, not later than 31.3.2011."
Once again since this order was not fully complied, the applicants moved Misc. Civil Application No.1278/2011 in Civil Application No.1229/2011 which came to be disposed of on 21.10.2011. In the order itself, the learned Judge recorded the grievances of present respondents no.3.1 and 3.2 as under :
"9. Respondent No.3 has filed an affidavit-in-reply, seeking to justify its action of not releasing the full amount of salary to the applicants. It is stated that as the applicants have been imparting education to disabled children at the primary level, they are to be paid the salary of primary teachers only, and not the salary they are demanding. It is further stated that the State Government has taken an undertaking from respondent No.3, to the effect that the amount of grant given by it is liable to be repaid, depending upon the final decision in the petition, therefore, the remaining amount has not been paid to the petitioners. Lastly, it is stated in Paragraph-7 of the affidavit that "inspite of such reality, the opponent No.3 is ready and willing to disburse the remaining amount of grant as per the direction that may be given by this Honourable Court in this Civil Application."
Learned Judge also recorded the stand of the State Government through learned AGP that Government has also called upon the said respondents to make payments immediately, despite which, no such payment was made. Learned Judge eventually recorded that there was half-hearted attempt in the apology given in Paragraph-7 of the affidavit, which according to the learned Judge was an afterthought. Learned Judge therefore, provided as under :
"26. For the aforesaid-stated reasons, the following order is passed:
The application is allowed.
Respondent No.3 is directed to release the full amount of salaries of the applicants, as per the table reflected in communication dated 26.11.2010, within a period of 15 days from today. Further, the salaries of the applicants for the months of February and March, 2009 shall be released by respondent No.3, within the stipulated period of time. If respondent No.3 fails to comply with the above directions within the time indicated hereinabove, the applicants are at liberty to resort to appropriate action."
Pursuant to such order after the time limit expired, said respondents issued cheques in favour of the teachers. Such cheques also were not realized. Thereupon, the present contempt petition came to be filed.
In this contempt petition, Division Bench issued notice on 26.12.2011 making it returnable on 27.1.2012. Hearing took place from time to time. We also had occasion to encounter obstinance on part of said respondents. Shri Dinkar Makwana was directed to remain personally present by order dated 24.2.2012. Once again due to his absence on 19.3.2012, we had issued bailable warrant to secure his presence before us on the next date of hearing i.e. on 2.4.2012.
From the affidavit in reply filed by the said respondents and the documents annexed with such affidavit, it clearly emerges that amount of Rs.15,34,876/- was received by the said respondents on 27.11.2010. First installment in favour of the teachers totalling to Rs.7,35,876/- was released on 18.4.2011. Second installment totalling to Rs.7,84,600/- was released on 24.1.2012. Thus the said respondents disbursed the entire amount of Rs.15,34,876/- in favour of the teachers and adjusted Rs.14,400/- towards professional tax in two installments released in April 2011 and January 2012.
Learned counsel Ms. Kruti Shah for the applicants vehemently contended that the said respondents are in the habit of noncomplying with the Court's order. Despite receipt of full grant from the Government, amount was not released for more than a year. Even Government's directions were ignored. The applicants had to move this Court on numerous occasions to receive the money. Lastly, only when the Court issued notice of contempt that full payment was made.
On the other hand, learned counsel Ms. Trusha Patel for the said respondents submitted that there was no intention to withhold the amount. The respondents have tendered unconditional apology. Government had asked for a bond from the said respondents to return the amount if ultimately in Special Civil Application No.2096/2010 any further order is passed by this Court. It was because of this reason that the said respondents had insisted on receiving undertaking from the teacher along similar lines. When such undertakings were received, payments were released.
From the record, it clearly emerges that respondents no.3.1 and 3.2 have withheld the grants released by the Central Government and received by the trust through the State Government for a considerable period of time. Their apology and explanations were previously not accepted. Learned Single Judge in the order dated 21.10.2011 observed as under :
"22. No doubt, there is a half-hearted attempt at an apology in Paragraph-7 of the affidavit, which appears to be an afterthought. Considering the vociferous opposition to payment of the full amounts of salaries, the same is unacceptable."
Before us also even to secure the presence of respondents and to elicit their response, was not an easy task. As already noted, Court's notices were ignored. Bailable warrants had to be issued. Affidavit came to be filed at a later stage. From the record as well as during the proceedings before us, we consistently gather an impression that the said respondents were not sincere about implementing the Court's order nor where they sincere about their apology tendered before the Court time and time again.
Additionally, it is also a matter of record that they received sum of Rs.15,34,876/- on or around 27.11.2010. First installment was released only on 18.4.2011, second installment was received on 24.1.2012. If the said respondents could release the first installment, we fail to see how payments of others could have been withheld when the respondents had received full amount from the Government. The theory that only after receiving undertaking from the teachers, such payment could be made must be rejected out of hand. Firstly, respondents had given such undertaking to the Government on 27.11.2010. Nowhere it has been stated by them in their affidavit that they in turn asked for an undertaking from the teachers concerned. The oral statement that teachers delayed giving such undertaking and that therefore, payment was delayed, therefore, cannot be accepted.
Under the circumstances, what emerges from the record is that respondents no. 3.1 and 3.2 have consistently made an attempt to delay release of the payment to the teachers despite repeated orders from the Government as well as by this Court.
We would have taken a sterner view and perhaps being justified in pursuing with this contempt petition also. However, when entire payment has been received and apology has been tendered not only in affidavit but by their counsel before us also, with respect to sincerity of which we have doubt, we close the contempt proceedings. Respondents must pay a cost of several proceedings that the applicant had to initiate because of their noncooperation.
We may recall that at-least half of amount of Rs.15,34,876/- remained in custody of the respondents no. 3.1 and 3.2 for over a year. Under the circumstances, this contempt petition is closed. Respondents no. 3.1 and 3.2 shall jointly and severally be liable to pay cost of Rs.15,000/- to the applicants. Such sum they shall deposit before the Registry of the Court latest by 10.5.2012. Upon such receipt, Registry shall release the sum in favour of the applicants by Account payee cheque drawn in favour of the applicant no.1 to be handed over to the counsel of such applicant.
Disposed of accordingly. Notice is discharged.
(Akil Kureshi,J.) (C.L.
Soni,J.) (raghu) Top