JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J.
1. This contempt petition has been filed with the allegation that the opposite parties have not complied with the orders passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 16th September, 1997 in Writ Petition No. 129 of 1984.
2. From the record it appears that the applicant was appointed as Assistant Teacher for English in 1971 by the Deputy Director of Education, Nainital. Upon the enforcement of U.P. Regularization of ad-hoc Appointments (on posts outside the purview of U.P. Public Services Commission) Rules, 1979, the case of the applicant was considered but vide order dated 2.8.1983 his services were terminated on the bias of some adverse entries earned by him in 1978-79. The applicant challenged the said decision by the aforesaid writ petition and a learned Single Judge of this Court set aside the order of termination and issued further directions to reconsider his case of regularization, without taking into account the alleged adverse entries given prior to 7.11.1979. It was further directed that for the entries of 1979-80, his representation should be decided by the Deputy Director of Education prior to the consideration for regularization. In compliance with the aforesaid direction, the representation of applicant with regard to the entry of 1979-80 was allowed and the entry was quashed. The Selection Committee considered the case of the applicant and found him fit for being regularized resulting into a consequential order dated 10th August, 1978 giving him all the benefits of seniority and increments, however, no arrears of salary was given resulting in filing of the present contempt petition.
3. The principal contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that in view of the judgment and directions passed by the learned Single Judge, the applicant was entitled for arrears of salary etc. The only stand taken by the opposite party is that there is no positive direction for giving arrears of salary, therefore, non-payment would not amount to wilful and deliberate violation under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and if the applicant was aggrieved by the order dated 10th August, 1998 he could have approached the appropriate forum for arrears of salary.
4. A perusal of the judgment of this Court shows that no positive directions could have been issued for arrears of salary because the Committee was yet to consider his regularization under the 1979 Rules. The Apex Court in the case of, Indrapal v. Managing Committee, M.I College. Thorn, AIR 1984 SC 1110, has held that once the order of termination is set aside, it would be deemed that the incumbent continued in service and therefore, he would be entitled to salary and allowance as if there was no break in service. A Division Bench of our Court in the case of, Chandravir Singh v. M.V. Mathur, 1990 ALJ 31, while considering a contempt petition arising out of non-compliance of an interim order staying a termination order came to the conclusion that such an order of the Court cannot be taken to be superfluous, meaningless or redundant. It held that the effect of such an order would be to restore back the position as obtained prior to the order and non-payment of salary would amount to flouting of the order. Again a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Praveena Solanki v. State of U.P. and Ors., (2003) 2 ESC 724, held that once the termination order is set aside, it would be deemed that the termination order was never passed and, therefore, the incumbent would be entitled to the arrears of salary, allowances and all other benefits. Had it been a case of quashing the order of termination, it could be said that it would not amount to flouting of the order, but here further directions have been issued.
5. There is yet another aspect to this matter. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of State v. Bhawani Singh and Ors., AIR 1968 Delhi 208 and the Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Secretary, Labour Social Welfare and Tribunal Development Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar and Anr., 1982 Cr. LJ 2255, had held that where and authority acts in disregard to a settled position of law, the Commission or omission would amount to Contempt of Court, even if such an act may not amount to wilful disobedience, the Contempt Court like a Executing Court can issue further directions to compel the authority for taking action which is in consonance with a settled law. Such a view is also compatible with public policy of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.
6. The Selection Committee once had regularized his services under 1979 Rules, in law it will be presumed that the applicant continued in service and the natural consequence would be that the applicant was entitled for the arrears of salary, until and unless there is anything on record to show that Regulations which gives the opposite parties the power to withhold the arrears of salary. There is nothing on record to show either of the contingency.
7. In my opinion, the applicant was entitled for the arrears of salary from the date of his termination to the date of his reinstatement in service and the Court is confident that after this order the opposite parties would release the arrears of salary within a period of six weeks from today.
8. With the aforesaid directions, this contempt petition is finally disposed off and the notices are discharged.