SMT. JABUNNISA Vs. JAGMOHAN GAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who has been serving as a Senior Teacher (Biology) in the education Department of the State w.e.f. Sept., 1982 has moved this Court by way of the above noted Writ Petition challenging the impugned action of the Respondents in not releasing her the salary dues for the period July. 1990 to 11th Sept., 1991 and withholding of yearly increments w.e.f. 1990 on the grounds inter alia that the withholding of the increments and salary dues for the disputed period was not justified anil she had also challenged the action of the Respondents in not giving her the benefit of pay-fixation for the year 1987 to 1989 onwards as arbitrary and unconstitutional. She had further contended in the Writ Petition that her annual grade increments to which she was entitled for the years 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993 have been withheld without any reason and as per rule 29 of the Rajasthan Service Rules for short "R.S.R.", she was entitled to the benefit of annual grade increments. The Respondents were not noticed by this Court and an ex parte order was passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 12th Jan., 1994. whereby this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition with a suitable direction the Respondents to take appropriate action in the matter for fixation of the pay of the Petitioner under the revised pay-scales and also to consider her case for grant of annual grade increments, which were due to the Petitioner since 1990. This Court further directed that necessary consideration should be made and an Order shall be passed by the Respondents within a period of two months of the receipt of the said order and the writ petition was finally disposed of with the said directions. It is the said order (dt. 12th January. 1994) which is subject-matter of this Contempt Petition and in respect of which the learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.

(2.) Prior to the filing of this contempt petition the petitioner had also served a notice to the respondents for justice demand vide (Annexure 1), the receipt of which has been disputed by the learned counsel for the Respondents.

(3.) During the course of hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner has slated that despite the above order dt. 12thJanuary, 1994 passed by this Court, the Petitioner has not been given the benefit of salary for the period 6-7-90 to 11 the Sept., 1991 and other benefits which were admissible to the Petitioner under the Rules.