Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2066 (ALL)

Bansh Narain Pandey v. Prafull Kumar Singhania

2011-09-03

SANJAY MISRA

body2011
Sanjay Misra, J.;- According to Sri K.C. Vishwakarma learned counsel for the applicant the applicant has filed writ petition no. 10666 of 1992 which was decided on 27.01.1999. When the order dated 27.01.1999 was not being complied with the applicant filed a Contempt Petition no. 2263 of 2001 and notices were issued whereupon the District Inspector of Schools passed an order dated 16.01.2001 denying the claim of salary of the applicant. In the Contempt Petition no. 2263 of 2001 the court framed charges against the District Inspector of Schools on 21.08.2003 whereagainst he filed Contempt Appeal no. 17 of 2003. In the meantime the applicant had filed Writ Petition no. 42270 of 2001 against the order dated 16.01.2001 hence the Contempt Petition no. 2263 of 2003 was deferred by an order dated 20.11.2003 passed in the Contempt Appeal no. 17 of 2003. According to him the Writ Petition no. 42270 of 2001 was dismissed on 26.03.2010 and the Special Appeal no. 754 of 2010 filed by the applicant thereagainst was also dismissed on 21.05.2010. 2. Learned counsel refers to the order dated 21.05.2010 to state that even though the Special Appeal No. 754 of 2010 was dismissed but the court clearly provided that if the appellants are working as Lecturer and Teacher in Rajasthan Inter College, Mirzapur, they are entitled for payment of salary from the Committee of Management to be paid from their own pocket. 3. Learned counsel further refers to order dated 01.08.2011 passed in Contempt Petition no. 2263 of 2001 and submits that it was dismissed as infructuous making it open for the applicants to avail the remedy available in law for payment of their salary from the Committee of Management as observed by the writ court. 4. This second contempt petition against the Manager Committee of Management has now been filed alleging disobedience of the order dated 21.05.2010 passed in Special Appeal No.754 of 2010 (Bansh Narain Pandey and another vs. State of U.P. and others). 4. This second contempt petition against the Manager Committee of Management has now been filed alleging disobedience of the order dated 21.05.2010 passed in Special Appeal No.754 of 2010 (Bansh Narain Pandey and another vs. State of U.P. and others). A perusal of the order dated 01.08.2011 passed in earlier contempt petition indicates that the order of the writ court as also the order passed in special appeal of the applicant was taken into account when the contempt petition was dismissed as infructuous and it was observed that it is open for the applicant to avail the remedy available in law for payment of their salary from the committee of management as observed by the writ court. 5. Consequently this contempt petition appears to be quite mis-conceived since in the special appeal it was clearly provided that the applicant can claim salary from the committee of management which is to be paid from their own pocket if the applicants have worked. There was no direction given in the special appeal but it was held that if the applicants are working they will be entitled. It was a conditional order. The applicants require to get their claim adjudicated as to whether they have at all worked after appointment in accordance with law. Unless it is adjudicated the applicants cannot make any claim. The special appeal order clearly recorded that 'if' the appellants have worked. 6. Clearly neither the writ court nor the court in Special Appeal have adjudicated the rights of the applicants. In fact the writ petition as also the Special Appeal of the applicants have been dismissed. 7. Under such circumstances, in case the committee of management (opposite party) is not paying the salary to the applicants and they claim to have worked as lecturer and teacher, it is always open for them to approach the appropriate forum for adjudication of their grievance. Their claim for salary can be raised only after such adjudication of their rights. This contempt petition is not the appropriate forum for such adjudication. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the contempt petition cannot be maintained and it is accordingly dismissed. 9. No order is passed as to costs.