JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner who has been serving as a Senior Teacher (Biology) in the education Department of the State w.e.f. September, 1982 has moved this Court by way of the above noted Writ Petition challenging the impugned action of the Respondents in not releasing her the salary dues for the period July. 1990 to 11th September, 1991 and withholding of yearly increments w.e.f. 1990 on the grounds inter alia that the withholding of the increments and salary dues for the disputed period was not justified anil she had also challenged the action of the Respondents in not giving her the benefit of pay-fixation for the year 1987 to 1989 onwards as arbitrary and unconstitutional. She had further contended in the Writ Petition that her annual grade increments to which she was entitled for the years 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993 have been withheld without any reason and as per rule 29 of the Rajasthan Service Rules for short "R.S.R.", she was entitled to the benefit of annual grade increments. The Respondents were not noticed by this Court and an ex parte order was passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 12th January, 1994. whereby this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition with a suitable direction the Respondents to take appropriate action in the matter for fixation of the pay of the Petitioner under the revised pay-scales and also to consider her case for grant of annual grade increments, which were due to the Petitioner since 1990. This Court further directed that necessary consideration should be made and an Order shall be passed by the Respondents within a period of two months of the receipt of the said order and the writ petition was finally disposed of with the said directions. It is the said order (dt. 12th January. 1994) which is subject-matter of this Contempt Petition and in respect of which the learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. 2. Prior to the filing of this contempt petition the petitioner had also served a notice to the respondents for justice demand vide (Annexure 1), the receipt of which has been disputed by the learned counsel for the Respondents. 3. 2. Prior to the filing of this contempt petition the petitioner had also served a notice to the respondents for justice demand vide (Annexure 1), the receipt of which has been disputed by the learned counsel for the Respondents. 3. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner has slated that despite the above order dated 12th January, 1994 passed by this Court, the Petitioner has not been given the benefit of salary for the period 6-7-90 to 11 the September, 1991 and other benefits which were admissible to the Petitioner under the Rules. 4. In the reply to the Contempt Petition, the Respondents have contended that the Petitioner has already been paid a sum of Rs. 20.916/- vide D. D. dated 12-5-94 and a sum of Rs. 11,256/- has also been paid to the petitioner on 6-1-94 total in Rs. 32.172/-. Thereafter the petitioner was reported to be absent from duty for the period 5-7-90 to 11-9-91. which was treated as extraordinary leave without pay vide Order dated 4-1-95, passed by the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Bikaner vide (Annexure R-3). Consequently the said period in dispute was not counted for Sanctioning periodical grade increments to the petitioner and the next date of her grade increment was accordingly shifted from 1-9-90 to 8-11-91 as per the Rules and arrears of salary up to 31-12-94, which have already been paid to the Petitioner are correct and do not require any recalculation. With regard to the pay-fixation of the Petitioner, the Respondents have contended that it was not done w.e.f. 1-9-89 and regularised at basic pay Rs. 2,060/- vide Order dated 17-8-93 and accordingly the arrears of salary w.e.f. 1-1-89 to 30-6-90 amounting to Rs. 7.998/- (gross amount Rs. 11,256 as referred to above) were paid to the petitioner on 5-1 -94 by the Principal of Government Senior Secondary School, Keshorai Patan. Thereafter arrears of salary from 11-9-91 to 31-12-93 amounting to Rs. 20.916/- (gross amount Rs. 23,220/-) were sent to the Petitioner by the Bankers Cheque and the Petitioner had refused to accept the same on 27-6-94 and the said cheque was got revalidated and paid to the petitioner in the Court on 19-12-94. Subsequently, petitioners L.P.C. indicating basic pay Rs. 2,060/-, Dearness Allowance Rs. 1,988/ -, House Rent Allowance Rs. 220/- was issued on 30-12-94. Vide order dated 18-1 -95 Petitioners pay was further regularised at Rs. Subsequently, petitioners L.P.C. indicating basic pay Rs. 2,060/-, Dearness Allowance Rs. 1,988/ -, House Rent Allowance Rs. 220/- was issued on 30-12-94. Vide order dated 18-1 -95 Petitioners pay was further regularised at Rs. 2240/- allowing annual grade increments to which she was eligible from time to time. On the basis of such pay regularisation. arrears of salary from 1-7-1990 to 31-12-93 amounting to Rs. 400/- (gross amount Rs. 5,526/-) was paid to the Petitioner by Bankers Cheque in the Court on 22-2-1995. Revised L.P.C. was issued by the Principal, S. S. School, Bundi on 25-1-1995 indicating her basic pay Rs. 2,240/- Dearness Allowance Rs. 2,173/ -, House Rent Allowance Rs. 220/- and Interim Relief Rs. 100/-. A copy of Last Pay Certificates dated 30-12-94 and 25-1 -1995 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R/l and Annexure R/2 respectively. On the basis of these Last Pay Certificates, arrears of salary from 13-5-1994 to 31-2-94 amounting to Rs. 6,690/- (gross amount Rs. 7,300/-) and from 13-5-94 to 31-1-1995 amounting to Rs. 3,168/- were paid by bankers cheque to the petitioner in the Court oil 15-3-1995. 5. From the perusal of the pleadings of the parties it is explicitly clear that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 12-1-1994, the respondents had duly complied with the same by not only doing the pay fixation of the petitioner w.e.f. January, 1995 by fixing her basic pay earlier to Rs. 2,060/- from January. 1995 and subsequently to Rs. 2,240/- w.e.f. February. 1995 but had also given the benefit of regularisation of the pay @ Rs. 2,240/- and had also allowed annual guide increments to which the petitioner was eligible from time to time. It is on the basis of the regularisation of the pay, the arrears of the salary for the period in dispute as referred to above and also the Dearness Allowance and other benefits which were admissible to the Petitioner was also complied with by the Respondents.5A. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the relevant documents on the record as well as the pleadings of the parties. The Petitioner has claimed payments on account of the revision of the pay and pay fixation amounting to Rs. 46,394/- for the disputed period and also Rs. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the relevant documents on the record as well as the pleadings of the parties. The Petitioner has claimed payments on account of the revision of the pay and pay fixation amounting to Rs. 46,394/- for the disputed period and also Rs. 63,986- as arrears on account of pay fixation amounting to Rs 1.10,380/- i.e. the original claim made by the Petitioner. Now the only question, which survives for consideration of this Court is as to whether the petitioner should be held entitled for payment of salary dues amounting to Rs. 46,396/- for the disputed period i.e. 6-7-90 to 11-9-91, which according to the Respondents amounts to wilful absence from duty since the Petitioner had not given any intimation to the School Authorities regarding her absence for the said period and had absented without sanctioned leave. According to the petitioner an order of transfer was passed transferring her services from Kotkhawda to Gudhachandra Ji on account of which she had to file a suit for injunction in the Court of Munsiff Magistrate. Bundi on 5-7-90 and the said Court vide its orders dated 7-7-90 had directed the parties to maintain status quo. There was no restraint order, passed by the said Court against the Respondents and in my view it was the duty of the Petitioner to have first reported for duly by assuming charge at the place of transfer, which admittedly the Petitioner had failed to do. In my view the Petitioner is not justified in raising any grievance for not having been paid her salary dues for the period in dispute since the transfer of the Petitioner was not ground to abstain her from attending her duties at the new place of posting in absence of sanctioned leave for the period 6-7-90 to 11-9-91. This fact is also fortified from the above order, passed by the Director, Primary and Secondary Education (respondent No. 3) vide (Annexure R-3). The perusal of the said order also reveals that instead of imposing the penalty of forfeiture of past service for the period indispute, the penalty of leave without pay for the said period was imposed on the petitioner. In my view this order is a well reasoned order and it does not c all for any interference by this Court. The perusal of the said order also reveals that instead of imposing the penalty of forfeiture of past service for the period indispute, the penalty of leave without pay for the said period was imposed on the petitioner. In my view this order is a well reasoned order and it does not c all for any interference by this Court. Asa result of the above discussions, the Petitioner will not be entitled to claim salary dues for the aforesaid period amounting to Rs. 46,394/-, however, the Petitioner will he entitled to the payment of arrears on account of pay fixation, revised pay and other benefits, which may be admissible to the Petitioner in accordance with the Rules The Petitioner had also not challenged the reason for deduction of the,amount from the total amount, claimed by the Petitioner on the ground that this Court while passing the order dated 12-1-94 could not have the privilege to take into consideration the Order dated 4-1-95 (Annexure R-3) as the said order was subsequently passed by Respondent No. 4. 6. As a result of the above discussion, the Respondents are accordingly directed to release the arrears due to the Petitioner as referred to above i.e. amounting to Rs. 63,986/-, out of which (he Petitioner has already received Rs. 50.470/- as per the statement of account shown to this Court and also to the learned counsel for the Respondents, who is present in the Court. Now the balance amount, to which the Petitioner is entitled on the basis of the above calculation comes to Rs. 20,574/- as per the statement of account. 7. It will be open to the Petitioner to make a representation in this regard to the Director, Primary and Secondary Education (respondent No. 4) within a period of four weeks from today and the same shall be heard and finally decided by the said respondent within a period of two weeks thereafter. 8. It is further clarified that the Order dated 4-1-95 (Annexure R-3), which is the imposition of the penalty on the petitioner shall not come in the way of the petitioner with regard to the payment of the increments for the period 1990. which may be admissible to the petitioner in accordance with the Rules. 9. 8. It is further clarified that the Order dated 4-1-95 (Annexure R-3), which is the imposition of the penalty on the petitioner shall not come in the way of the petitioner with regard to the payment of the increments for the period 1990. which may be admissible to the petitioner in accordance with the Rules. 9. As a result of the above discussions nothing survives for consideration of his Court and this Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.Order accordingly. *******