TRIPAL SINGH Vs. HARPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as an, Assistant Clerk in a recognised educational institution on 1.9.77 and was duly confirmed a year after. It is alleged that the Principal and Manager of the institution did not permit him to sign the attendance register and, therefore, the petitioner approached the District Inspector of Schools who, after making enquiries, held that the petitioner had been duly appointed and confirmed to his post after the period of probation. Not satisfied with the decision of the District Inspector of Schools the Committee of Management filed an appeal before the Dy. Director of Education which was allowed and thereafter the petitioner challenged the order of the Dy. Director of Education in writ petition No. 12949 of 1981. It is alleged that certain interim orders were passed by the High Court and ultimately by an order dated 3.5.83 it was directed that the petitioner be paid his salary from 20th Oct. 1981 to 30th April, 1983 by 10th July, 1983 and the salary which became due from 1st May, 1983 onwards will be paid continuously by the opposite party month by month.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the categorical orders passed by the High Court the opposite parties have been disobeying the same with a view to cause harassment and inconvenience to the petitioner.

(3.) In reply to the show cause notice the stand of the opposite parties is mainly two fold, firstly it is urged that there was no disobedience of the orders passed by the High Court but on account of accute financial constraints the opposite parties were unable to pay the salary to the petitioner and also all other employees of the institution. It was, therefore, contended that there was no wilful disobedience of the order of the Court as the opposite parties always intended to bona fide to comply with the directions of the High Court. The second line of I defence is that a sum of Rs. 6,202.20 which was due to the petitioner up to 30th April, 1982 was duly. paid to him by cheque on 9.7.83 within the prescribed period. In respect of the salary from May 1983 onwards it is alleged that the institution was not a Government aided institution until 31st March, 1984 and, therefore, it was not possible to make payment of the salary to any of the employees of the institution including the petitioner. After the Government started giving aid the financial condition of the institution improved a little and further payment was made to the petitioner.