S. SAKUNDALA Vs. S. SAROJA AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Alleging non-compliance of the order of this Court dated 21.10.2016 passed in W.A.No.940 of 2016, the writ petitioner has come up with the present contempt petition.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that by order dated 16.04.2014 issued by the first respondent, she was terminated from service with effect from 01.05.2014, which was challenged in W.P.No.12772 of 2014. This Court, by order dated 06.11.2014, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the aforesaid termination order. Inspite of the same, the petitioner was not reinstated in service, which compelled her to file Contempt Petition No.247 of 2015. During the pendency of the same, the respondents filed Review Application No.21/2015. This Court, by common order dated 11.09.2015, dismissed the review application and closed the contempt petition, with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service within a period of four weeks. Instead of complying with the said direction, the respondents filed an appeal in WA.No.940 of 2016, wherein, the Division Bench granted an interim order on 21.10.2016, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and report the compliance. After receipt of the said order, by order dated 24.10.2016, the petitioner was reappointed as pre-primary school teacher temporarily from 26.10.2016. In view of the same, the writ appeal was withdrawn. According to the petitioner, as per the order of this Court, she ought to have been reinstated in service, whereas, she was reappointed by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court with the present Contempt Petition.

(3.) When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the respondents produced an affidavit of the first respondent, wherein, it is stated that in obedience of the order dated 21.10.2016 passed by this Court, the petitioner was reinstated in service and she was allowed to work as Pre-primary Teacher in the respondent School and she received the entire salary upto April 2017. It is further stated that the petitioner is now working in some other school and she left the respondent school on her own volition.