RABINDRA NATH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIBAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed for directing the authorities to make payment of salary to the petitioner from 1-1-1976 up-to-date.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner filed a title suit bearing Title Suit No. 23 of 1979 for declaration that he was legally appointed head clerk of the school in question and he is entitled for salary from the date of appointment. That suit was filed when the school in question was a committee managed school and in that suit, the headmaster, who is respondent No. 5 in this writ application, was one of the defendants and he entered appearance and filed written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff. The said suit was decreed on contest on 17-7-1980. Against the decree of the trial Court an appeal was taken before the lower appellate Court. The execution of the decree of the trial Court was stayed by the Appellate Court and the said appeal was dismissed on 11-1-1984. In the meantime, the decree holder filed an execution case, bearing Execution Case No. 2 of 1981 in the Court of learned subordinate Judge. The execution case remained pending for a long time and since in spite of the categorical direction given by the executing court, the headmasttr failed to obey the decree, a contempt proceeding was initiated by the executing court against him. It appears that in the meantime, in the year 1980 the school in question was taken over. The petitioner was running from pillar to post, but he was not paid his salary for a single month from 1-1-1976. Ultimately, the petitioner moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3749 of 1988 as the headmaster, respondent No. 5. was not allowing him to join. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in the aforesaid case on 2-9-1988 the petitioner was allowed to join the school on 5-9-1988 by the headmaster, respondent No. 5. So far the question of payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner is concerned, this Court while disposing of the aforesaid writ application directed that the executing court should make all possible efforts for execution of the decree. Since the petitioner failed in his attempt in spite of the aforesaid order of this Court, he has no option but to come to this Court by filing the present writ application.

(3.) In this writ application, it has been further stated that in spite of the fact that the petitioner did join pursuant to the order passed by this Court, he was not being paid his salary. Since the salary was not being paid to the petitioner a rule of contempt was issued from this Court on 18-3-1991 as to why a contempt proceeding be not initiated against respondent No. 5. In this writ application on 16-5-1990 the State Government was directed to implement the judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3749 of 1988. This Court was further of the view that the current salary of the petitioner must be paid to him. In view of the fact that the current salary as well as the arrear salary was riot paid to the petitioner in spite of the decree and the direction of the executing court, this Court had no option but to issue notice to respondent No. 5 on 18-3-1991 to show cause as to why a contempt proceeding be not initiated against him. Subsequently, the records of the title suit, title appeal and the execution case were called for and a rule of contempt was issued from this Court to respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 5 as to why a contempt proceeding be not initiated against them. Pursuant to the notice, respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 5 have entered appearance. Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 have filed their separate show cause.