(1.) -This contempt petition has been filed with the allegation that the opposite parties have not complied with the orders passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dated 16th September, 1997 in Writ Petition No. 129 of 1984.
(2.) FROM the record it appears that the applicant was appointed as Assistant Teacher for English in 1971 by the Deputy Director of Education, Nainital. Upon the enforcement of U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (On posts outside the purview of U. P. Public Services Commission) Rules, 1979, the case of the applicant was considered but vide order dated 2.8.1983 his services were terminated on the basis of some adverse entries earned by him in 1978-79. The applicant challenged the said decision by the aforesaid writ petition and a learned single Judge of this Court set aside the order of termination and issued further directions to reconsider this case of regularisation, without taking into account the alleged adverse entries given prior to 7.11.1979. It was further directed that for the entries of 1979-80, his representation should be decided by the Deputy Director of Education prior to the consideration for regularisation. In compliance with the aforesaid direction, the representation of applicant with regard to the entry of 1979-80 was allowed and the entry was quashed. The selection committee considered the case of the applicant and found him fit for being regularised resulting into a consequential order dated 10th August, 1978 giving him all the benefits of seniority and increments, however, no arrears of salary was given, resulting in filing of the present contempt petition.
(3.) THERE is yet another aspect to this matter. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of State v. Bhawani Singh and others, AIR 1968 Del 208, and the Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Secretary, Labour Social Welfare and Tribunal Development Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar and another, 1982 Cr LJ 2255, had held that where an authority acts in disregard to a settled position of law, the commission or omission would amount to contempt of court, even if such an act may not amount to wilful disobedience, the contempt court like a executing court can issue further directions to compel the authority for taking action which is in consonance with a settled law. Such a view is also compatible with public policy of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.