B L KAPUR Vs. J S YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against Prof. J.S. Yadav, Chairman, O.P. Sharma, Treasurer and Dr. R.S. Pandey, Officiating Principal of Rajdhani College, Delhi alleging wilful violation of the order dated 20.1.1992 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CW No.3674/90 quashing the letter dated 12.11.1990 issued by the governing body of the Rajdhani College terminating the service of the petitioner. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that he was appointed Principal of Rajdhani College on 5.8.1985; prior to that he was working as vice-Principal, Ram Lai Anand College (evening); he was to retire from the post of Principal of the College on 31.10.1990, after attaining the age of 60 years; by letter dated 26th September, 1990, chairman of the governing body of the college (hereinafter "the chairman") approved his re-employment as Principal of the college with effect from 1.11.1990 After re-employment, he worked uptil 12.11.1990. In the meantime, there was a change in composition of governing body of the college, the issue of re-employment of the petitioner came up for reconsideration. The Chairman through its letter dated 12.11.1990, asked the senior most teacher to officiate as Principal of the college in place of the petitioner till the issue of re-employment of the petitioner was decided. Aggrieved by this letter, petitioner filed a writ petition. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 20.1.1992 quashed the said letter dated 12.11.1990, holding that petitioner was entitled to work as Principal of the College with effect from 1.11.1990 and that petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits. The petitioner resumed work as Principal of the college on 20.1.1992. However, the chairman by letter dated 7.4.1992, informed the petitioner that his services have been terminated and in lieu of the notice period, he was given three months' salary by a cheque of Rs.27,276/-. It is pleaded that the petitioner was not given retirement benefits like pension, gratuity, leave encashment, etc. which became due on retirement, despite request letter dated 1.9.1992 and notice dated 5.11.1992. It is alleged that the respondents wilfully did not implement above-noted order dated 20.1.1992.

(3.) Dr. B.S. Yadav, the Principal of Rajdhani College filed a reply on 11.2.1993, admitting that the petitioner retired on 31.10.1990 after attaining the age of superannuation. He was re-employed with effect from 1.11.1990; and that he was removed from service and senior most teacher was asked to work by the management vide letter dated 12.11.1990; that the petitioner rejoined as the Principal of the college from 20.1.1992 and worked till 7.4.1992 when his services were'terminated. It is pleaded that petitioner did not hand-over the charge and continued to be in possession of important documents which could help the college to process the case of the petitioner in releasing his retirement benefits. The college informed the petitioner on 6.3.1991 enclosing therewith list of documents in his custody but the same were not returned to the college and in the absence these documents, it was difficult for the College to process his case for his retirement benefits, for the period in dispute. It is further pleaded that petitioner was in possession of the keys of the filing cabinet which was in the Principal's office; that the petitioner was previously working as Vice-Principal in Ram Lai Anand College and he had his lien in the said college as Vice-Principal; his service record from Ram Lal Anand College continued to remain in the said college; all benefits that accrued to the petitioner while he was working in the college were to be paid by the said college. The petitioner was to get a 'No Dues' certificates from other departments/units of the college before any payment could be released to him after his retirement. It was pleaded that petitioner's assistance in further releasing the retirement benefit to him was necessary, which he failed to provide despite several letters. The respondents were making all efforts to implement the orders. It is also pleaded that Delhi Administration, Vice-Chancellor and Delhi University were parties to the writ petition and they have not been impleaded as parties in the contempt petition. Relevant portion of the counter affidavit reads as under: