JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—The applicant, widow of late Ajai Bahadur Singh, has instituted these contempt proceedings, alleging disobedience of the directions contained in the judgment of this Court dated 12-8-2005, by which the concerned educational authority was directed to decide the claim of the payment of arrears of salary of late Ajai Bahadur Singh for the period 11-4-1996 to 12-12-1997 and payment of family pension to the applicant. 2. The facts giving rise to this matter are that a vacancy on the post of lecturer in commerce occurred on 30-6-1996 due to the retirement of the permanent incumbent Sri Ram Raj Lal, in Indra Bahadur Singh National Inter College, Bhadohi, district Sant Ravidas Nagar. It appears that before the actual vacancy occurred, steps under the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act 1982, read with the regulations framed thereunder, were undertaken for advertising the same for holding selections. 3. The applicant’s husband, late Ajai Bahadur Singh was selected under the Schedule Caste category for which the post in question was reserved. It appears that one Yogendra Bahadur Singh claimed the said post by virtue of same order dated 5-11-1992 passed in W.P. No. 20921 of 1992 who sought continuance on ad hoc basis. Nonetheless an application was moved by Ajai Bahadur Singh before the District Inspector of Schools for joining on the post upon which communications emanated from the office of the District Inspector of Schools dated 12-4-1996, 18-4-1996 and 19-4-1996 respectively. The last communication reflects action under Section 17 of the 1982 Act, as the management was resisting the joining of Ajai Bahadur Singh. The ad hoc claimant, Yogendra Bahadur Singh, also resisted the claim of Ajai Bahadur Singh by filing W.P. No. 17035 of 1996 on which orders were passed that selections shall abide by the result of the writ petition. Ajai Bahadur Singh approached the Selection Board and the Secretary issued a letter on 25-5-1996 calling upon the District Inspector of Schools Bhadohi to ensure the joining of the applicant in the institution and took notice of the letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 19-4-1996 to that effect. 4. Yogendra Bahadur Singh filed Special Appeal No. 502 of 1996 against the order passed on his Writ Petition No. 17035 of 1996 and an interim direction was issued on 17-6-1996 allowing Yogendra to continue. 4. Yogendra Bahadur Singh filed Special Appeal No. 502 of 1996 against the order passed on his Writ Petition No. 17035 of 1996 and an interim direction was issued on 17-6-1996 allowing Yogendra to continue. This was short lived as the Special Appeal was disposed off on 31-7-1996 with a direction to decide the Writ Petition alongwith Yogendra’s earlier Writ Petition No. 20921 of 1992 at the earliest and the interim order dated 17-6-1996 was discharged. 5. The Director of Education sent a communication on 6-12-1996 upon which the Deputy Director of Education directed the District Inspector of Schools to take a decision. Another letter emanated from the Additional Director of Education on 11-2-1997 where after the Director passed orders on 4-4-1997 stopping payment of salary to Yogendra Bahadur Singh and issued directions in favour of Ajai Bahadur Singh. 6. Having faced the ordeal and the orders passed in his favour, Ajai Bahadur also filed W.P. No. 30761 of 1996 for a mandamus in his favour in order too enable him to join in the institution. This petition was ultimately allowed on 21-10-1997 allowing him to join the institution within 2 months subject to the condition that in the event the selections by the Board are set aside, Ajai Bahadur shall be discontinued. The District Inspector of Schools passed a consequential order on 19-11-1997 calling upon the institution to permit Ajai Bahadur to join. 7. It is alleged that while on his way to the institution on 12-12-1997, Ajai Bahadur Singh was shot dead by Yogendra and his associates. 8. The applicant Manju Rani Bharti thereafter applied for compassionate appointment which claim was rejected on 30-11-2000. A writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 3164 of 2001 was preferred by her against the said order which was allowed on 15-3-2002. Alleging disobedience, a contempt application No. 519 of 2003 was also moved by her whereafter she was given appointment on compassionate basis in Mahila Gram Inter College, Subedarganj, Allahabad. 9. The applicant had simultaneously also claimed the arrears of salary of her late husband and family pension as well. This claim remained unattended for which she filed Writ Petition No. 2597 of 1998. This writ petition was disposed of on 12-8-2005 with a direction to the Additional Director Secondary Education to decide the representation of the applicant. 9. The applicant had simultaneously also claimed the arrears of salary of her late husband and family pension as well. This claim remained unattended for which she filed Writ Petition No. 2597 of 1998. This writ petition was disposed of on 12-8-2005 with a direction to the Additional Director Secondary Education to decide the representation of the applicant. The Director of Education in the meantime asked the District Inspector of Schools to take decision for payment of arrears of salary and family pension to the applicant vide order dated 6-3-2006. Aggrieved on account of inaction on the part of Additional Director, the present contempt was initiated whereupon the Additional Director passed orders on 3-5-2006 rejecting the claim of the applicant. 10. Upon a scrutiny of the order dated 3-5-2006, this Court vide order dated 19-8-2006 noted that there was a non-consideration of relevant material which resulted only in a partial compliance and the authority was called upon to furnish on explanation leaving it open to the authority to pass a fresh order. Accordingly, a fresh order has been passed by the Additional Director of Education on 17-10-2006, again rejecting the claim of the applicant on several grounds. 11. Sri Ashish Agarwal learned Counsel for the applicant has urged that it was not open to the Additional Director to ignore the impact of the judgment dated 15-3-2002 and record findings to the contrary when the entire correspondence from the office of the District Inspector of Schools established that the applicant’s husband had joined and was entitled to be treated in service as held in the aforesaid judgment. It was also urged that there was no reason to suspect the veracity and probity of the letters issued from the office of the District Inspector of Schools, particularly the letter dated 19-4-1996 which in fact stood admitted in the order of the Board dated 25-5-1996 and the subsequent correspondence on record. It is contended that the genuineness of the letter dated 19-4-1996 was never doubted at any stage and the recital contained in the order to that effect is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the findings recorded in the judgment dated 15-3-2002 and to resile from the admissions made by the authorities themselves acknowledging the claim of the applicant which is also reflected in the order of the Director dated 6-3-2006. The order passed on 17-10-2006, therefore, according to the learned Counsel amounts to a wilful and deliberate defiance of the directions of this Court in letter and spirit. Advancing his submissions Sri Agarwal contends that forming another opinion was not permissible on the same set of evidence which earlier stood practically admitted by the authorities and finds itself reflected in the judgment dated 15-3-2002. 12. Learned Standing Counsel, Sri K.R. Singh defending the orders passed by the Additional Director, has urged that the authority has fully complied with the directions dated 12-8-2005 and has also noticed the order dated 15-3-2002 which was in respect of the claim of compassionate appointment of the applicant. His contention is that there is no admission of the authority and the indication given in the earlier correspondence is an opinion on the administrative side without any adjudication after hearing the concerned parties including the management. Apart from this, it is urged that the alleged admission has been successfully explained and the matter has been adjudicated after full opportunity to the applicant vide order dated 17-10-2006. Even otherwise, he contends, that the claim of joining before the District Inspector of Schools, as indicated in the correspondence between 11-4-1996 and 19-4-1996, is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 17 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act 1982 and therefore, in the event an inference of admission is sought to be drawn, then such an alleged admission would not be binding as it is against law. The stand taken is that the Additional Director has found that Ajai Bahadur never joined the institution and the mandamus dated 21-10-1997 could not be implemented as the candidate was unable to join and work even for a single day. Sri Singh has also urged that the quick succession in which the correspondence has emanated between 11-4-1996 and 19-4-1996 indicates same hasty approach, which casts a reasonable doubt, more so when the order was passed a day before, i.e. on 18-4-1996, calling upon the management to afford an explanation. He contends, that in order to resolve this situation, that the Court while passing the order on 12-8-2005, did not express any opinion on the merits of the claim and gave liberty to the authority to take an independent decision in the matter. 13. He contends, that in order to resolve this situation, that the Court while passing the order on 12-8-2005, did not express any opinion on the merits of the claim and gave liberty to the authority to take an independent decision in the matter. 13. Pointing out at the decision dated 15-3-2002, it has been argued that this Court had assumed the selection and placement of late Ajai Bahadur Singh to be valid, but there was no issue raised or decided with regard to the provisions and the procedure prescribed under Section 17 of the 1982 Act and, therefore, this Court rightly gave full liberty to the authority to take an independent decision vide order dated 12-8-2005. Another factor indicated was about the period of two months given by this Court in its order dated 21-10-1997 permitting the management and the authorities to allow Ajai Bahadur to join. It is urged that Ajai Bahadur was shot dead even before the expiry of two months and in the event there was any disobedience, then it was in respect of the order dated 21-10-1997 for which no contempt or any other proceeding was initiated. It is contended that there is no direction in the order dated 15-3-2002 for arrears of salary or family pension, therefore, no contempt of the said order can be alleged. 14. I have perused the records with the able assistance of the learned Counsels and have considered their well formulated submissions. There is no doubt, that while considering the status of the selection and appointment of late Ajai Bahadur Singh, this Court in W.P. No. 3164 of 2001 in respect of the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment, had clearly upheld the selection and appointment of late Ajai Bahadur Singh. It is because of this, that the applicant was found entitled for compassionate appointment which benefit was extended to the applicant as a consequence of the judgment dated 15-3-2002. The findings in the said judgment, therefore, became final and have not been questioned otherwise also. In the order dated 17-10-2006, the Additional Director has noticed the said judgment but has not fully reflected the impact of the said judgment which continues to find the parties, presumably because the same did not involve the issue of arrears of salary and family pension. In the order dated 17-10-2006, the Additional Director has noticed the said judgment but has not fully reflected the impact of the said judgment which continues to find the parties, presumably because the same did not involve the issue of arrears of salary and family pension. Nonetheless, the judgment dated 15-3-2002 fully acknowledged the selection and placement of late Ajai Bahadur Singh as valid and further found that he had been permitted to join in the office of the District Inspector of Schools at that point of time when he was being illegally prevented by the management. The resistance put forth by the management did not survive in view of the mandamus dated 21-10-1997 but the management continued to wilfully avoid it culminating with the murder of Ajai Bahadur on 12-12-1997. In essence it was virtually the management which was unlawfully preventing Ajai Bahadur from discharging his duties in the institution. 15. In such a situation, the management could also have been criminally prosecuted under Section 22 of the 1982 Act and could have also been saddled with the liability of salary under sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the said Act provided the ingredients thereof were established in law. Further the salary due could have been recovered as arrears of land revenue as per sub-section (3) of Section 17. The consequences of a default by the management, in the matter of appointment of a reserve pool teacher, which is not the case here, is provided for in Section 21-D of the 1982 Act. There a teacher has been permitted to give a joining report before the District Inspector of Schools and would also be entitled to salary from the date of such joining. Such a provision is however not contained in Section 17 of the Act. Neither is there any corresponding provision elsewhere including the payment of Salary Act No. 24 of 1971. In case of default in payment of salary, the only provision in respect of an aided institution is to take recourse to either Section 3 or Section 5 of the 1971 Act that too after giving an opportunity to the management. But then the same would have to be reconciled with the provisions of Section 17(3) of the 1982 Act which raises another debate. 16. But then the same would have to be reconciled with the provisions of Section 17(3) of the 1982 Act which raises another debate. 16. In such a situation, where there is no positive direction for payment of arrears of salary of late Ajai Bahadur Singh and family pension as claimed by the applicant, and where there is no adjudication of the issues discussed herein above, then in that event such an exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 215 of Constitution of India read with the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. Under the directions of this Court dated 12-8-2005, a conscious decision has been taken by the Additional Director on 3-5-2006 and again on 17-10-2006. The correctness or otherwise of the said decisions can always be questioned before the appropriate forum raising all such issues that arise therein. Their validity cannot be questioned in these proceedings as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in 2004 (7) SCC 261 . Where a situation of this sort arises, and a long drawn process of reasoning is required to arrive at a finding, then in that event, the aggrieved party has to avail the remedy by approaching the appropriate Court or Eorum. Such being the position in the instant case, and for all the reasons recorded herein above, this contempt cannot proceed at this stage. 17. Accordingly, the matter is consigned to records without prejudice to the rights of the parties if any. ————