JUDGMENT C/M Gyan Bharti Shiksha Sadan Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Karvi, District Chitrakoot through its Manager Ram Siya is assailing the validity of the order dated 29th April, 2016 passed by learned Single Judge wherein learned Single Judge has proceeded to set aside the suspension order dated 30.03.2016. 2. Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare, Advocate submitted that learned Single Judge has unnecessarily stretched the order dated 25.11.2011 passed by this Court and the said order in question ought to have been seen in the light of subsequent developments that have been so noted by this Court while deciding contempt application on 19.01.2016 and in view of this, the action of the Managing Committee of the Institution could not have been faulted. 3. Shri R.K. Ojha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri N.L. Srivastava, Advocate, on the other hand, contended that the order passed by this Court dated 25.11.2011 clearly proceeded to make a mention that during the pendency of the writ petition, salary of teaching and non-teaching staff of the Institution shall be ensured by way of single operation and as writ petition in question has been pending then any order passed in contempt application could not have diluted the effect of the said order and as entire charge against Shiv Lal is for not complying the order as such suspension order has rightly been quashed and even at this juncture, in case this Court proceeds to clarify the situation, the petitioner-opposite party has no objections in complying with the order. 4. It is true that the order dated 25.11.2011 proceeds to recite statement of fact that salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the of the Institution shall be ensured by way of single operation during the pendency of the writ petition and this is accepted position that said writ petition in question has been pending. This is also accepted position that much water has flown since then as new election has been held and said elections have been recognized and there has been no interim order operating, in view of this, this Court on 19.01.2016 has proceeded to clarify the situation. 5. This is also accepted position that much water has flown since then as new election has been held and said elections have been recognized and there has been no interim order operating, in view of this, this Court on 19.01.2016 has proceeded to clarify the situation. 5. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that order dated 31.03.2016 has been passed for non-submission of the salary bills and in case the Principal of Institution has taken shelter of the order dated 25.11.2011, then he cannot be, prima facie, blamed for the same and as it has been submitted before this Court that in case the said order is clarified, then requisite exercise would be undertaken. 6. In view of this, we proceed to clarify the position that the order dated 25.11.2011 should confine itself to the fact that till fresh elections are held and as new Committee of Management has taken over charge and signatures have been attested and in the challenge made, only order that has been passed that it shall abide by the result of the writ petition as such, the Principal should prepare salary bills and such bill should be countersigned by duly recognized Committee of Management and same shall abide by the outcome of the writ petition that are pending adjudication by this Court. With these observations/directions, present Special Appeal is disposed of.