JONALI GOGOI Vs. PRAFULLA CH SARMAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful and deliberate violation of the final order dated 1.3.2000 passed in Civil Rule No. 5720/1998. The petitioner was appointed as Subject Teacher in Economics in April 1987. She continued to receive her salary till September 1996. However, inspite of repeated approach when she was not paid her salary from October, 1996, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing a writ petition being Civil Rule No. 5720/ 1998. While entertaining the writ petition by order dated 18.11.98, it was provided that the pendency of the writ petition would not be a bar on the part of the respondents to release the salary of the petitioner as per law. The records produced on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2 revealed that the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate by his communication dated 23.11.98 duly intimated the respondents No. 1 and 2 about the said order dated 18.11.98 and forwarded a copy of the writ application for parawise comments etc. However, it appears that no steps for filing any affidavit either admitting the claim of the petitioner or refuting the same were taken. The writ petition stood finally closed by the aforesaid order dated 1.3.2000 issuing a clear direction to the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner, both arrear and current. As regards the payment of arrear salary a time limit of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order was fixed. The operative part of the said order is reproduced below:

(2.) When the respondents did not carry out the aforesaid order and did not pay the arrear salary to the petitioner, she was constrained to move this court by filing the instant contempt petition. This Court by order dated 15.9.2001 issued notice to the respondents to show cause as to why a proceeding under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 should not be initiated against them. Notice was made returnable within six (6) weeks. As per office note dated 12.10.2001 and 1.11.2001, notices were duly served on the respondents and the AD cards had been received back. To quell any doubt as to the actual service of notice on the respondents, more particularly, the respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e. the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Education Department and the Director of Secondary Education Assam, the records produced on their behalf have been verified which clearly revealed that the said respondents duly received the contempt notices issued by this Court by order dated 15.9.2001. There is also no denial on the part of the respondents about the service of notice on them, nor there is any plea of late receipt of the contempt notice. The records produced also revealed timely receipt of the same by the said respondents.

(3.) Inspite of such service of notice on them, there was no response to the contempt notice by any one of the alleged contemners/ respondents. It was admitted at the bar that the respondents No. 1 and 2 were/are the officers responsible for implementation of the aforesaid direction of this Court. While the respondent No. 2 maintained complete silence by not responding to the contempt notice inspite of receipt of the same, the respondent No. 1 adopted a strange procedure by way of passing an order on 20.12.2001 on receipt of the contempt notice. By the said order, the respondent No. 1 issued a direction to the respondent No. 2 to examine the claims raised by the petitioner and to determine whether she was entitled to get her sal- ary and allowances and if found deem fit to take necessary steps. The order passed by the respondent No. 1 was concluded with the remark that the same was issued in compliance with the order of this Court dated 15.9.2001 in Contempt Case (C) No. 3637 2001. By order dated 15.9.2001, this Court had issued notice as to why contempt proceeding should not be initiated against the respondents. The respondent No. 1 who could pass the aforesaid order dated 20.12.2001 on receipt of the contempt notice did not care to respond to the contempt notice by way of making any appearance before this Court either in person or through his counsel. The order dated 20.12.2001 reads as follows: