RASILABEN M SHAH Vs. JAYANTILAL H PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Rasilaben M. Shah was serving with Uma Primary School, Fulvadi Park, Isanpur, Ahmedabad, which was managed and run by Shri Ramvidhyo Tejak Trust. The trustee managing the said trust is one Jayantibhai H. Patel. Said Rasilaben was not allowed to resume her duties on 15.10.1989 resulting in termination of her services. The mater was taken before the Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order dated 12.10.1995, held the action of the school illegal and ordered reinstatement of the petitioner and directed the school authorities to make the payment of difference between the actual wages paid and wages which were required to be paid under rules for the period 22.5.1986 to 15.10.1989 within three months. Respondents were also directed to make payment of the arrears of salary with effect from the date of termination of services to the date of reinstatement. The respondents did not implement this order for long which led Smt. Rasilaben to file Special Civil Application No. 2148/98 against (1) Shri Jayantibhai H. Patel, the Trustee and Mantri of the Trust, (2) The Principal, Uma Primary School, (3) District Education Officer and (4) District Primary Education Officer, Municipal Corporation, somewhere in March 1998. This Court, while issuing notice on 24.3.1998 on the said special civil application, by interim order, directed the respondents to comply with the order of the Primary Education Tribunal dt. 12.10.1995. Respondents No. 1 & 2 did not choose to appear in response to said notice. In the circumstances, on 17.7.1998, bailable warrants were issued to secure the presence of respondents No. 1 & 2. Thereafter, on 8.10.1998, the Court, in the presence of learned counsel for the parties including that of the respondent No. 1, Jayantibhai H. Patel, the trustee and Secretary of the school, directed respondents No. 1 & 2 to comply with the order of the Tribunal on or before 16.10.1998 and to pay difference of salary directed by the Tribunal and to pay the amount of salary with all other allowances from the date of the order of the Tribunal. Respondents No. 1 & 2 were further directed to file pursis before the Court regarding the compliance of the order by 16.10.1998. No compliance of these directions were either made by 16.10.1998. On a grievance being made about non- compliance of the order dated 8.10.1998, the Court noticed that instead of being regretful on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2, learned counsel had submitted that the last date was 16.10.1998 and since he was busy with some other matters, he is now producing the pursis and that order will be complied with. The pursis purporting to be dated 16.10.1998 was produced with the letter dated 15.10.1998 addressed to the Principal purported to be signed by the petitioner Smt. Rasilaben with an endorsement by Smt. Rasilaben that she would remain present on 6.11.1998 Friday. The signatures of Smt. Rasilaben Shah on the said documents were denied by the applicant Smt. Rasilaben and alleged it to be forged one. The Court entertained a suspicion about the genuineness of the said document and fell necessity of a probe. It was stated on behalf of respondent No. I before the Court on 9.11.1998, as under :-

(2.) With this statement having been made in the Court, the Court recorded further,

(3.) The matter was posted on 10.11.1998. On 10.11.1998 respondent No. 1 Shri Jayantibhai H. Patel was not present but some other trustee was present. No explanation was furnished against initiation of contempt proceedings except stating that amount could not be paid as government grant has not been received. It was informed by Mr. Dave, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 Shri Jayantibhai H. Patel, thai in pursuance of instruction dt. 8.10.1998 the applicant has not been taken on duty until that day i.e. 10.11.1998 admitting that no payment has been made to the applicant whether as directed by the Tribunal or in compliance of the directioin issued by this Court on 8.10.1998. However, it was staled lhal applicanl has been laken on duly on that day. The Court also observed lhal compliance of order dt.- 8.10.1998 was not dependent on receipt of the government aid by the respondents and the matter was directed to be placed before the Division Bench hearing contempl matters for taking contempt proceedings against respondent No. 1 on the basis of orders made by this Court on 17.7.1998, and 8.10.1998 and observations made in the order dt. 9.11.1998. Incidentally, so far as matter related to considering launching prosecution against respondent No. 1 was cocerned, the matter was adjourned to 11.11.1998. About that aspect of the matter, we are told that after the applicant was taken back on job, she expressed her desire not to proceed against respondent No. 1 in the matter of prosecution for the forged signatures on the document. Accepting thai requesl the matter was dropped by order dt. 23.11.1998, a copy of which was placed on record.