VED PRAKASH JOSHI Vs. AMRIT PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(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 September 16, 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. Regularization 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 August 2, 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 his case of regularisation, without taking into account the alleged adverse entries given prior to November 7, 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 regularized resulting into a consequential order dated August 10, 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.) The principal contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that in view of the judgment and directions passed by the learned single Judge, the applicant was entitled for arrears of salary etc. The only stand taken by the opposite party is that there is no positive direction for giving arrears of salary, therefore, non-payment would not amount to wilful and deliberate violation under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and if the applicant was aggrieved by the order dated August 10, 1998 he could have approached the appropriate Forum for arrears of salary.