Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1228 (PAT)

Bharat Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2008-08-25

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD, RAVI RANJAN

body2008
Judgment 1. This application has been filed for initiating a proceeding for contempt against the opposite party for non-compliance of the order dated 1st of November, 1996 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6140 of 1990. 2. While allowing the writ application, this Court observed as follows: "15. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 31.8.1990 of the respondent no. 2, the Director (Secondary Education), Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, is quashed and the respondents are directed to treat the petitioners as teachers of the State Government with effect from August, 1986 and pay them salary in accordance with law." 3. Complaining non-compliance of the aforesaid order, the present contempt petition was filed in the year 2000 in which it has been stated that the petitioners have not been paid the salary from August, 1986 as directed by this Court. 4. One show cause had been filed on behalf the Director, Secondary Education, namely, Kamleshwar Prasad Singh. Another show cause has been filed by Bhrigu Nath Upadhyay, also the Director of Secondary Education. 5. In the show causes filed, they have stated that the order of this Court has been complied and payment made in July, 2008. 6. When the aforesaid fact was brought to our notice on 30.7.2008, we had directed the Director, Secondary Education to explain why order of the Court has been complied after twelve years. 7. In the show cause, it has been averred that in the light of the order of the Court, the District Education Officer was directed to give the detail of working and non-working period of the petitioners and the District Education Officer, vide its report dated 24.11.2002, reported that the petitioners did not work since 26.7.1986 to 7.4.1988. This seems to be justification for not making the payment earlier. 8. However, in paragraph no. 8 of the show cause filed today, it has been stated as follows: "8. That during the course of hearing of present MJC the Hon ble High Court on 2.5.2008 was pleased to order that "the salary for the said period has not been paid on the ground that the petitioners were absent from their duties during that period. 8 of the show cause filed today, it has been stated as follows: "8. That during the course of hearing of present MJC the Hon ble High Court on 2.5.2008 was pleased to order that "the salary for the said period has not been paid on the ground that the petitioners were absent from their duties during that period. It is true that the petitioners did not discharge their duties since August, 1986, but that prevention was unauthorized prevention as held by this Court in the principal order by issuing an order terminating their services. Accordingly, if that order of termination has been removed and it is declared that the petitioners are in service from August, 1986, the law conjoins payment of salary from August, 1986." 9. We have heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh for the petitioners and Standing Counsel No. V for the contemnor. 10. The plea taken by the Director, in the show cause that delay has occurred on account of the enquiry being made in regard to the working period of the petitioners, is nothing but sitting over the order of this Court. This Court, in unequivocal term, had directed for payment of salary, with effect from August, 1986. Thereafter the entire exercise of calling for report from the. District Education Officer was absolutely misconceived. The act of the Director in calling for such a report, cannot be said to be bona fide and an attempt to deny the benefit to the petitioner, which he was entitled in view of the direction of this Court. 11. As several persons have held the post of Director during this period and in view of the unqualified and unconditional apology tendered by the present incumbent, we are not inclined to award any substantive punishment, but the petitioners, having been unnecessarily dragged in this litigation, we award a cost of Rs. 11,000/- to be paid by the State Government to the petitioners within two weeks. The Secretary of Higher Education shall hold an inquiry, fix responsibility for the delay and realize that amount from the person found responsible. 12. The proceeding stands dropped with the direction aforesaid. 13. List it after two months under the heading to be mentioned and on that date, the State Government shall apprise the Court the action taken. 14. Application stands disposed off with the direction aforesaid.