Contempt Petn. No. 232 of 1992, D/- 11 -1 -1994. Case: Meena Vs S.D. Chacharkar. High Court of Bombay (India)

Case NumberContempt Petn. No. 232 of 1992, D/- 11 -1 -1994
CounselFor Petitioner: A.P. Deshpande, Advs. and For Respondents: S.A. Bari (for Nos. 1 and 2)) A.D. Mohagaonkar (for No. 3) L.G. Deshpande (for Nos. 4 and 5), Advs.
JudgesB. U. Wahane, J.
IssueContempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971) - Sections 10, 12; Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act (3 of 1978) - Sections 11, 12
Citation1994 CriLJ 2647
Judgement DateJanuary 12, 1994
CourtHigh Court of Bombay (India)

Judgment:

  1. This is an application filed by the petitioner Ku. Meena Bhandakkar on 11-11-1992 for initiating the proceedings of contempt against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for wilful disobedience of the judgement and order passed by the learned School Tribunal, Nagpur, dated 8-7-1992 in Appeal No. STN/9/1990.

  2. The facts leading to the instant contempt petition are in brief as follows:

    The petitioner Ku. Meena was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 17th November, 1987 on probation for a period of two years by the respondents/contemnors Nos. 1 and 2. Her services were terminated vide order dt/- 6-7-1989 with effect from 7-8-1989. The termination order was issued on the ground that there being reduction of sections and no approval was granted by the Education Officer to her appointment and, therefore, her services were no more required. The petitioner Ku. Meena preferred an appeal vide Appeal No. STN/9/90 before the School Tribunal, Nagpur. The learned School Tribunal allowed the appeal vide judgement and order dated 8-7-1992. The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur, directed the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in appeal respondents 2 and 3), to re-instate the appellant/petitioner with continuity of service and payment of arrears of emoluments, with effect from 7-8-1989. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were further directed to permit the appellant to join her duties as and when she submits her joining report. The President, School Committee, Nav Jagruti Vidyalaya, Nagpur, was granted 60 days' time to pay the arrears of emoluments to the appellant for the period from 7-8-1989 up to the date of her joining services (from the date of receipt of judgement). By the order, the appellant was directed to join her duties by submitting her joining report to Head Master within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the judgement. In case the Management fails to pay the arrears of emoluments as mentioned above, within the given time, the respondent No.l (the Education Officer(S), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur) was directed to deduct the said amount from the grants due and payable in future to the Management and pay to the appellant directly.

  3. The petitioner, after the judgement of the School Tribunal, passed on 8-7-1992, approached the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (the President, Secretary and Head Master) with a joining report. The petitioner handed over the copy of judgement of the School Tribunal to the first respondent (the President of the society) on 16-7-1992. The Secretary and the Head Master were also present at that time in the school. She was informed that they require time to take decision in the matter and directed her to report after two or three days. Petitioner, therefore, repeatedly approached the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3. She handed over an application to the Head Master on 23-7-1992, however, she was not allowed to resume her duties. The petitioner also lodged a complaint with the Deputy Director of Education on 30-7-1992 against the respondents Nos. 1.2 and 3 and sought necessary action against them. Instead of allowing the petitioner to resume her duties, the respondent No.1, the President of the Society, sent a communication on 31-7-1992 to the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, seeking guidance. Again the petitioner approached the Education Officer vide communication dated 12-8-1992. The Education Officer (Respondent No.4), by his order dt/- 27-8-1992 directed the respondents 1 to 3 to immediately comply with the order passed by the School Tribunal and sent report accordingly to him within a period of 8 days, about the compliance of the order of the School Tribunal.

  4. The petitioner repeatedly approached the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 requesting them to allow her to join her duties. She also made representations to the Education Officer on 8-10-1992 and to the Deputy Director of Education on 14-10-1992.

  5. According to the petitioner, though she repeatedly requested the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to allow her to join her duties in pursuance of the orders passed by the School Tribunal, they did not comply the same. Similarly, though directed by the School Tribunal to the respondent No.4 i.e. the Education Officer to make the payment to her, the Education Officer failed to pay the arrears of emoluments. Therefore, from the facts and circumstances, as also from the conduct of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 that they have wilfully disobeyed the order passed by the School Tribunal and thereby committed the contempt of Court. She had no other alternative rather than to approach this Court bringing the facts to the notice of the Court to intimate the contempt proceedings against the respondents.

  6. It has been stated at bar by the learned counsel of the parties that during the pendency of the instant proceedings, the petitioner has been re-instated in service on 24-11-1992.


    7. On the first date of admission, i.e. on 16-11-1992, my brother Shri Mutalik, J. directed the respondents to deposit a sum of Rs. 89,546/- towards the arrears in the Court or to pay the same directly to the petitioner by crossed cheque. The learned brother directed the respondents that the order must be strictly complied before 30th November 1992 and the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 shall file affidavits accordingly. However, admittedly, the order passed by this Court on 16-11-1992 has not been complied.

  7. My brother Shri Desai, J., on 20th April 1993, directed the respondent - Management to deposit Rs. 10,000/- by 26th April, 1993. In pursuance of the directions given by this Court on 20th April, 1993, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was directly paid to the petitioner Ku. Meena on 28-4-1993.

  8. Again on 22-6-1993, my brother Shri Sambre, J., directed the respondent - Management to deposit Rs. 10,000/- within a week from the date of the order and also directed the contemnor to remain present in the Court on the next day. In pursuance of this order, though not within a week from the date of the order, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to the petitioner on 5-7-1993.

    Barring the payment of Rs. 20,000/- in two installments as stated in proceeding paras, no other payment either of arrears of emolument or of regular salary has been made to the petitioner after her re-instatement in service on 24-11-1992.

  9. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed reply. They did not dispute that the petitioner contacted the respondent No. 1 Shri D.M. Joshi, the then Head Master to allow her to join her duties in pursuance of the order passed by the learned Tribunal in STN/9/90. It is further contended that it was the duty of the in-charge Head Master to allow her to join her duties. The respondent No.3 the in-charge-Head Master did not comply with the order of the learned Tribunal and also the order of the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur. The communications were sent by the Education Officer and the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur, to the respondent No.3, but he deliberately and wilfully suppressed the fact of receiving such communications from the management. It is submitted that the petitioner has not served in the institution after 7-8-1989, i.e. the date of her termination and as such she is not entitled to receive any emoluments after that date. Further it is submitted that the present in-charge Head Master Shri S.D. Borande is also liable for ignoring the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, according to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 there is no wilfull disobedience of the order passed by the School Tribunal and, therefore, they have not committed any contempt of Court as contemplated under S. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. There is no whisper in reply about the payment of arrears as also the regular salary from the date of petitioner's re-instatement in service on 24-11-1992. While arguing the matter, Shri Bari, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, submitted that they have no money to pay the arrears and further submitted that the bills are waiting for the approval.

  10. The respondent No. 3, the then Headmaster Shri Joshi, filed the Civil Application No. 2783 of 1993 to discharge him from the proceedings. According to him, he was never appointed as the Head Master. He was only directed by the Education officer to send pay-bills under his signature of the approved staff of the school. He was not the party to the appeal No. STN/9/90. On behalf of the Head Master, Mr. Borande who was then...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT