JUDGMENT O.P. Garg, J.
1. This is an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 with the prayer that the opposite-party Km. Kamlesh Priyadarshi be summoned and punished for her wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 29-9-1994 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 1776 of 1986.
2. Counter and rejoinder affidavit have been filed. Heard Sri V.B. Singh on behalf of the petitioners and Sri. R. K. Saxena, learned Senior Standing counsel on behalf of the opposite party.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Deputy Director of Education Gorakhpur Region Gorakhpur by order dated 8-6-1979 created three posts of l. T. Grade Teachers in Bhartiya Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Raja Bari Jaswal, Gorakhpur along with other posts. The Committee of Management proceeded to fill up one post of L. T. Grade teacher by promotion and two posts of L. T. Grade teachers by direct recruitment. The petitioners were selected by a Selection Committee. The Committee of Management passed a resolution for their appointment on 5-12-1979. The petitioners joined and started working in the institution w. e. f. 6-12-1979. They were confirmed as teachers of L. T. Grade. They were also granted revised pay scale in the year 1982. A Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3480 of 1979, Ram Chandra Yadav and 11 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. was filed for issue of writ of mandamus directing the District Inspector of Schools (for short 'DIOS') Gorakhpur to pay their salary upto date and to continue to pay the same in future as well. An interim order was passed in that case on 18-9-1979. On 28-10-1993, the aforesaid writ petition was allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay salary to three teachers and to pay their salary in future also. The DIOS Gorakhpur was directed to examine the matter relating to the other petitioners and to redetermine the strength of teachers and employees of the institution in the light of the judgment with a further direction that they shall be paid salary till their services were legally determined. The present petitioners namely, Vishwanath Singh and Narendra Prasad Tripathi were not party to the said writ petition. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, in the aforesaid writ petition, the DIOS Gorakhpur considered the representation of the present petitioners and by his order dated 13-1-1986, decided that the petitioner were not entitled to L. T. Grade posts as they were appointed by direct recruitment on the sanctioned posts which were to be filled up by absorption of those teachers who were already working in the institution. The order dated 13-1-1986 passed by the DIOS Gorakhpur, whereby he rejected the claim of the present petitioners for the posts of Assistant Teachers in the L. T. Grade was challenged in Civil Misc. Writ No. 1776 of 1986. This petition was finally decided on 29-9-1994. The order dated 13-1-1996 passed by the respondents was quashed and the DIOS was directed that :-
"The District Inspector of Schools is directed to decide the matter afresh keeping in view the observations made above and in accordance with promoted to one post out of three sanctioned posts of L. T. grade in the year 1979. As regards two other posts in L. T. Grade the Management had right to make appointment by direct recruitment.
He will further consider the strength of teachers and employees of the institution as directed by the Court in its judgment in Writ petition No. 3763 of 1984, referred to above, and if finds necessary may refer the matter to Director of Education for creation of additional posts of L. T. Grade and if such post is created the persons already promoted may be absorbed..."
4. In the present application for contempt, it is alleged that the opposite party Km. Kamlesh Priyadarshi, DIOS Gorakhpur has neither decided the controversy as directed by this court nor she has referred the matter to the Director of Education for creation of additional posts. It is further urged that the implication of the order dated 29-9-1994 whereby the order dated 13-1-1986 has been quashed, is that the applicants are entitled for their regular salary as the Committee of Management has got the power to make direct appointment in the L. T. Grade. The complaint of the petitioners is that the salary of the petitioners has not been released by the opposite party and that they were not permitted to join the institution.
5. In the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party, it has been specifically mentioned that after passing of the order dated 29-9-1994, the requisite steps were taken for creation of the post in the L.T. Grade and relevant details regarding strength of the students and teachers working in the institution were called from the Principal of the institution. The Principal of the institution has submitted a detailed year-wise chart w.e.f. 1979 to 1995 along with the strength of teachers working in the institution. It was pleaded that a perusal of the chart submitted by the Principal of the institution indicated that in the institution, the total strength of the students was 157 whereas 11 teachers were already working in the institution, which strength is more than sufficient. Therefore, there did not arise any question of the creation of the post of Teachers in the L T. Grade and that considering the strength of the students in the institution and the number of teachers available, it was not found expedient to make correspondence with the superior authority regarding creation of posts. It is further pleaded that both the petitioners have been absorbed in L.T. grade in other two institutions
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the effect of the quashing of the order dated 13-1-1986 passed by the respondent is that the petitioners will get their seniority and arrears and that the respondent has not taken the order dated 29-9-1994 passed by this court in true spirit. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the petitioners will loose their seniority by seven years and other benefits and, therefore, inaction on the part of the respondent is clear violation of the order passed by this court.
7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is no specific direction in the order dated 29-9-1994 about the payment of salary to the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners have taken up employment in other schools and are presently working in L T. Grade. In pursuance of the direction passed by this Court, the opposite party made the requisite enquiries and keeping in view the ratio of students and teachers available in the institution, it was found that it was no longer necessary to move for the creation of new posts.
8. The question of seniority of petitioners was not directly involved in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1 776 of 1986. In a recent case reported in (1997) 3 SCC 25, Dr. (Capt) Akhouri Ramesh Chandra Sinha v. State of Bihar and Ors., a similar controversy about the interpretation of order passed by Supreme Court came to be raised. The Supreme Court absorved that if the respondent-State misunderstood the scope of the judgment and have given benefits to other officers who were not entitled, it is open to the petitioner to have his rights adjudicated in an appropriate proceedings in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court and the law. It was further observed that no attempt was made by the Government to misinterpret the order passed by the Supreme Court. It cannot be said that it constitutes a deliberate and wilful disobedience in implementation of the orders of the Supreme Court.
9. Whatever may be the interpretation with regard to the order dated 29-9-1994 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 17/6 of 1986, the fact remains that there was no specific direction about the seniority and other allied benefits accruing to the petitioners The direction has been substantially complied with by the opposit party by ascertaining the fact as to whether creation of any new posts in the L. T. Grade is required or not. Moreover, since the petitioners have been absorbed in other institutions in L. T. Grade, the question of their absorption after the quashing of the order dated 13-1-1986 in Bhartiya Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Raja Bari, Jaswal, Gorakhpur does not arise. The opposite party has not committed any disobedience, much less wilful or deliberate disobedience of the order dated 29-9-1996 passed in Civil Misc Writ No. 1776 of 1986.
10. The present application for contempt fails and is accordingly dismissed The notice issued against the opposit party for contempt of this court is hereby discharged.