Shri Manohar Aglani Vs. Smt. Chhaya Trivedi - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1053370
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnApr-08-2013
AppellantShri Manohar Aglani
RespondentSmt. Chhaya Trivedi
Excerpt:
con.a.no.12/2012 manohar aglani & another smt.chhaya trivedi & others 8.4.2013 shri prashant singh, counsel for appellants. shri umesh trivedi, counsel for respondent no.1. this appeal is directed against an order dated 9.4.2012 in contempt case no.1064/2007, by which the learned single judge while deciding the matter issued directions to the effect that the appellants have committed disobeyance of the order and have wrongly furnished an undertaking before the high court in contempt petition no.1064/2007, be recorded in the service book. this part of the order is under challenge in this appeal only, but for the ready reference we quote the entire order dated 9.4.2012, which reads thus :- “09.04.2012 shri umesh trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. shri sanjay dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. shri vinot mehta, learned counsel for the respondent no.6. this contempt petition was filed against the respondents for non- compliance of interim order dated 7.6.2007, passed in writ petition no.6995/2007. the petitioner who was at the relevant time working as lecturer on proforma promotion as principal, government pre-primary training institute (montessori) jabalpur, was required to approach this court by way of filing writ petition no.6995/2007(s).challenging the order dated 10.4.2007, by which she was said to be transferred. this court while entertaining the writ petition admitted the same, issued the notices to the respondents and granted an interim relief in the following manner :- “in the meanwhile, it is directed that if no person has joined at the place where the petitioner was working in con.a.no.12/2012 manohar aglani & another smt.chhaya trivedi & others pursuance to the order dated 10.4.2007 (annx.p/5) then the petitioner shall be permitted to work at the said institution at jabalpur and in case any person has joined on the post of the petitioner then status quo which exists today shall be maintained.” it was complained that this order was brought to the notice of the respondents by the petitioner by making an application, but her joining was not accepted though nobody has been posted in her place. thus, the non-compliance of the order was brought to the notice of this court. the contempt petition was entertained, the notices were issued to the respondents no,4 and 6. in the meanwhile, the writ petition filed by the petitioner also came up for final hearing and the same was decided by an order dated 20.8.2010. this court while passing the order in detail categorically held in the writ petition that there was a breach of the order passed by this court. though the petitioner was said to be relieved on 25.5.2007, but she immediately approached the court and obtained an interim order on 7.6.2007, which was brought to the notice of the authorities, but nothing was done and interpreting as if the interim order of this court was to maintain status-quo, the petitioner was not permitted to join in the pre-primary training institute. it was further found by this court that a further breach of the order was committed by the respondents by issuing order dated 10.7.2007 transferring the petitioner from government pre-primary training institute to government high school ranital, majhouli, district jabalpur, without taking leave of this court and without seeking modification of the order of the court. it was again found by this court that ultimately the orders were issued and the petitioner was posted in the government education college, jabalpur. it was found by this court that because of such improper attitude of the respondents, the petitioner was not paid the salary for the period she was not con.a.no.12/2012 manohar aglani & another smt.chhaya trivedi & others allowed to join right from the month of april 2007 to august 2007. however, since the order of posting of the petitioner in appropriate manner was subsequently issued which order was complied with by the petitioner, this court finally disposed of the writ petition with a direction to make payment of the salary for the period of april 2007 to august 2007 and also to count the said period as duty period for all purposes, count the same for the purposes of granting of kramonnati and decide such claims.in view of all these findings when the response of the contempt petition submitted by the respondents was examined, this court reached to the final conclusion on 14.12.2011 that a contempt was made out against the respondents no.4 and 6 and, therefore, they were directed to remain present before the court to show as to why they be not punished because of non- compliance of the order passed by this court. the respondent no.4 made an application for grant of exemption from personal appearance and thereafter certain replies have been filed. it is not pointed out by the respondent no.4 that the compliance of the order of this court has been done. the petitioner has been granted all the benefits. earlier order of the state was of proforma promotion. subsequently, an order of posting was issued in respect of the petitioner in appropriate manner. in view of the sanctioned strength, the petitioner could not be accommodated and was, therefore, relieved for joining in the office of the district education officer. the mistake relating to the posting of the petitioner in an institution where no post of such a cadre was available, brought to the notice of the authorities and the same was subsequently corrected by issuance of the order on 10.7.2007. the regular promotion of the petitioner was made on the basis of which she was given the right posting and this order was complied with. this being so, it is contended that there was no contempt committed by the con.a.no.12/2012 manohar aglani & another smt.chhaya trivedi & others respondent and, therefore, he be discharged. respondent no.6 has filed a response stating that he has simply complied with the orders of superior authorities being the principal of the government pre primary training institute, jabalpur. the very same orders have been brought on record. pursuance to the direction issued by the higher authorities, salary of the petitioner was drawn for the period of april 2007 to august 2007 and the same has been paid to the petitioner on 12.12.2011. thus, it is contended that respondent no.6 has also not committed any contempt and he too be discharged. the fallacy of the stand taken by the respondents are writ large. respondents no.4 and 6 were noticed of this contempt petition. these were the officers who were responsible to carry out the order of this court. they were required to inform the authorities of the state in case any mistake in posting of the petitioner was committed, to rectify the mistake immediately and to intimate this court about such fact. even when the state authorities have written that the posting order of petitioner was wrongly issued and a correction in the same was necessary, such fact was required to be intimated to the authorities immediately. even from the letter dated 9.7.2007, it is clear that the respondent no.6 was informed that the fact relating to mistake committed in making posting of the petitioner was noted down by the authorities at state level and they were issuing the necessary orders and this fact was to be brought to the notice of this court even then, nothing was done by him. on the other hand, pursuance to the order dated 10.7.2007, the petitioner was said to be transferred and posted in a school at majhouli, jabalpur. it was this order which was sought to be implemented, instead of complying with the order of the court. such an attitude of the respondent no.6 cannot be said to be correct and proper con.a.no.12/2012 manohar aglani & another smt.chhaya trivedi & others action. similarly, the respondent no.4 was also responsible for issuing such an order of making change in posting of the petitioner despite the knowledge of the fact that there was an interim order of maintaining status-quo with respect to the posting of the petitioner as issued on 10.7.2007. the said authority was required to inform this court firs.and should have sought the leave of this court to make change in the posting of the petitioner and then only to issue any order. if the authorities act in the manner as has been noted down by this court in the final order passed in the writ petition on 26.8.2010, it cannot be said that the respondents have not committed contempt of this court. therefore, they are liable to be punished for such conduct. however, the fact remains that not posting of petitioner has been done in rightful manner and the salary has been paid to the petitioner. as stated by the respondents, other claims of the petitioner have been granted. keeping in view this, taking severe action against the respondents for committing contempt is not desirable. however, to ensure that such type of mischief may not be committed by the respondents in future, they are called upon to file an undertaking within a period of fifteen days from today, before the registry of this court in true sense, stating that such mistake will not be repeated in future. the fact relating to a direction to furnish an undertaking before this court given in this contempt proceedings, be recorded in the service book of the respondents no.4 & 6. this is directed only because it is found that the respondents were grossly negligent in complying with the order of this court. even the order passed in the writ petition was not assailed not the same was set aside by any higher court. with the aforesaid, the rule issued to the respondents is discharged and the contempt proceedings initiated against the respondents stand dropped.” con.a.no.12/2012 manohar aglani & another smt.chhaya trivedi & others it is submitted by the appellants that as there was no post available at the government pre-primary training institute, jabalpur, so it was not possible for the appellants to accept joining of respondent in the said institute and because of this the appellants were not in a position to comply with the order passed by this court in w.p.no.6995/2007(s).it is submitted that not both the appellants have filed their unconditional apology in the matter. the appellants may be pardoned and the aforesaid direction of the court may be directed to be deleted. shri umesh trivedi, learned counsel for respondent no.1 supported the order and submitted that it was a case of willful disobeyance of the order passed by this court and the learned single judge, taking a lenient view issued such directions, which needs no interference. before proceeding further, we would like to clarify one more fact that in w.p.no.6995/2007(s).in which interim order dated 7.6.2007 was passed in respect of which it has been found proved that the aforesaid order was not complied with by the respondents, rather there was disobeyance of the order itself, has been finally decided by the single bench by an order dated 26.8.2010. for ready reference we quote the entire order dated 26.8.2010, which reads thus :- 26/08/2010: shri umesh trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. shri yogesh dhande, learned panel lawyer for the respondents. initially when this writ petition was con.a.no.12/2012 manohar aglani & another smt.chhaya trivedi & others filed in the year 2007, petitioner had challenged various orders transferring the petitioner from one institute to another namely annexure p/8 dated 21.5.2007 and annexure p/7 dated 25.5.2007 respectively. it is seen from the records that petitioner was working as lecturer in government pre- primary training institute (montessori).jabalpur. while so working she was promoted as principal in the pay scale of rs.6500-200-10500/- vide order annexure p/2. name of the petitioner finds place at s.no.314 of the said list. even after promotion, petitioner was shown to be posted in the same government pre primary training institute, jabalpur. it seems that the principal of the institute found it difficult to post the petitioner in the same school as no sanctioned post of principal was available in the pay scale to which petitioner was promoted i.e.rs.6500-200-10500/- and subject of history was not being taught in the said institute. the principal, the district education officer and the commissioner entered into correspondence and thereafter by the impugned order annexure p/7 dated 25.5.2007 was passed transferring the petitioner from government pre primary training institute, jabalpur to the office of district education officer, jabalpur. when the order annexure p/8 was passed on 21.5.2007 in this regard and when the petitioner was relieved vide annexure p/ 7 on 25.5.2007, petitioner approached this court and record indicates that an interim order was passed on 7.6.2007 and following directions were issued :- “in the meanwhile, it is directed that if no person has joined at the place where the petitioner was working in pursuance to the order dated 10.4.2007 (annexure p/5) then the petitioner shall be permitted to work at the said institution at jabalpur and in case any person has joined on the post of the petitioner then status quo which exists today shall be maintained.” con.a.no.12/2012 manohar aglani & another smt.chhaya trivedi & others from the aforesaid directions issued by this court it would be clear that this court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to work in the institute at jabalpur in case no person has joined on the post. however as an alternate it was ordered that if any person had joined on the post then the status quo existing on 7.6.2007 should be maintained. even though none has joined on 7.6.2007, neither the petitioner was permitted to join in the institute as ordered by this court. instead a modified order annexure r/4 dated 10.7.2007 was issued posting the petitioner not to government high school ranital (majhouli).jabalpur instead in the office of district education officer, jabalpur as earlier ordered. before the aforesaid order could be complied with another order was issued on 13.8.2007 vide annexure r/5 further promoting the petitioner as principal to 10+2 higher secondary school and posting her in the government education college, jabalpur where petitioner joined after being relieved on 25.8.2007. annexures r/5 to r/7 are the documents evidencing the facts with regard to promotion of the petitioner on the post of principal 10+2 higher secondary school and her relieving and joining in government education college, jabalpur. respondents not in the return have come out with a case that as transfer of the petitioner from government pre primary training institute, jabalpur to district education officer, jabalpur ordered by the impugned order is cancelled and petitioner is not posted in government education college, jabalpur and therefore, this petition is rendered infructuous. shri umesh trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner refutes the aforesaid and points out that even though petition may have been rendered infructuous with regard to challenge of transfer is concerned but petitioner is entitled to salary from april, 2007 to con.a.no.12/2012 manohar aglani & another smt.chhaya trivedi & others august, 2007 which remains unpaid and thereafter the order of transferring the petitioner to government high school, ranital (majhouli).jabalpur vide annexure r/4 dated 10.7.2007 is also liable to be quashed as this order was never served on the petitioner and was only enforced. petitioner further submits that certain persons working along with the petitioner and junior to her have been granted krammonati but the same benefit is not granted to the petitioner. accordingly, on the aforesaid grounds, shri trivedi submits that petition survives and has to be adjudicated by this court. shri yogesh dhande, learned counsel for the respondents by taking me through the documents filed with the return submits that as petitioner herself was responsible for not joining at the transferred place, she is not entitled to salary on the post in question. as far as annexure r/4 transferring the petitioner to government high school, ranital (majhouli) is concerned, even though shri yogesh dhande submits that the order has been passed and served on the petitioner but the fact remains that the respondents’ return itself indicates that this order was never given effect to. instead petitioner was promoted as principal 10+2 higher secondary school and joined at government education college, jabalpur on 25.8.2007. having considered the rival contentions and taking note of the submissions made, i propose to take up each issue separately. as far as petitioner’s transfer to district education officer, jabalpur, is considered due to subsequent development that have taken place and taking note of the fact that she has joined at government education college, jabalpur on 25.8.2007 after she was transferred to the said institute vide annexure r/5 on 13.8.2007, the question of interfering with the impugned orders of transfer i.e.annexure p/8 dated 21.5.2007 and annexure p/7 dated 25.5.2007 and con.a.no.12/2012 manohar aglani & another smt.chhaya trivedi & others annexure p/5 dated 10.4.2007 does not arise. due to the subsequent development and the fact that petitioner has been transferred and she has joined in the government education college, jabalpur, respondents are directed not to implement the orders of transfer namely annexure p/8, p/7 and p/5 respectively. petitioner having been transferred to government education college jabalpur, subsequently vide annexure r/5 on 13.8.2007 not all these orders earlier transferring the petitioner to the office of district education officer, jabalpur and subsequently to the government high secondary school ranital (majhouli).district jabalpur, have become redundant and need not to be enforced. accordingly to that extent this petition is allowed. respondents are restrained from enforcing the aforesaid orders.petitioner shall be permitted to work in the government education college, jabalpur where she was transferred vide order annexure r/5 dated 13.8.2007 and joined on 25.8.2007 vide annexure r/7. as far as question of payment of salary to the petitioner from april 2007 to august 2007 is concerned, petitioner was transferred from government pre primary training institute to the office of district education officer on 21.5.2007 and she was relieved on 25.5.2007. she immediately approached this court by filing the present writ petition on 1.6.2007 and on 7.6.2007 the order as indicated herein above was passed. once the order transferring the petitioner was stayed and respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to work in the institute at jabalpur in case nobody has joined on the said post, in all fairness respondents should have firs.permitted the petitioner to join duties at the institute and thereafter seek modification of the order or point out to this court that somebody else has joined and therefore, status quo was to be maintained. nothing has been done, instead interpreting the order dated 7.6.2007 as an order of status quo, con.a.no.12/2012 manohar aglani & another smt.chhaya trivedi & others petitioner was not permitted to join in the pre primary training institute inspite of the order passed by this court and thereafter further committing breach of this court’s direction, order annexure r/4 dated 10.7.2007 was passed again transferring the petitioner from government pre primary training institute to government high school, ranital (majhouli).district jabalpur, without taking leave of this court and without seeking modification of this court’s order. this attitude of the respondents in neither complying with the interim order passed by this court on 7.6.2007 and not permitting the petitioner to join in government pre primary training institute, jabalpur and passing the order annexure r/4 is totally uncalled for, unjustified and an arbitrary action and in that view of the matter itself, petitioner is entitled to salary w.e.f.the date it remain unpaid i.e.from april, 2007 to august 2007 when she was relieved to join at government education college, jabalpur on 25.8.2007. accordingly, respondents are directed to make payment of the salary which remained unpaid from april 2007 to august 2007 as the petitioner was denied salary for the aforesaid period only because respondents have not taken prompt action for complying with the interim order passed by this court on 7.6.2007 and without seeking modification or clarification of the order kept on acting on their own assumptions and presumptions. accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner in this regard is allowed and respondents are directed to make payment of salary to the petitioner for the period from april 2007 to august 2007 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. as far as order of enforcing of the order annexure r/4 dated 10.7.2007 is concerned as already indicated herein above, due to subsequent development of the transfer, posting and joining of the con.a.no.12/2012 manohar aglani & another smt.chhaya trivedi & others petitioner in government education college, jabalpur vide annexure r/5, r/6 and r/7, not order of transfer annexure r/4 dated 10.7.2007 need not to be given effect to and therefore, to that extent, this petition is allowed. petitioner in this petition has further prayed to consider her claim for grant of krammonati as similarly situated persons working upto 1982 have been granted the said benefit and the said benefit is not extended to the petitioner. material available on record is not sufficient to adjudicate this dispute and therefore, it is thought appropriate to direct respondents no.2 and 3 to decide the claim of the petitioner with regard to grant of krammonati in accordance with law. accordingly, it is directed that on the petitioner’s filing certified copy of this order along with her representation indicating particulars of so called juniors who have been granted the said benefit of krammonati and on the same being done, respondents no.2 and 3 shall decide the claim of the petitioner for grant of krammonati at par with her juniors within a period of two months thereof and communicate the decision to the petitioner. with the aforesaid, this petition stands allowed to the extent indicated herein above and disposed of, no order as to costs. c.c.as per rules.” by the aforesaid order the learned single judge while deciding the matter finally has held that inspite of the order dated 7.6.2007, the respondents were not permitted to join in government pre-primary training institute, and thereby further committed breach of the order of the high court dated 10.7.2007 also in the matter. from the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the writ court while deciding the matter finally has also found that con.a.no.12/2012 manohar aglani & another smt.chhaya trivedi & others the order passed by writ court dated 7.6.2007 was not complied with by the appellants herein. it is also stated at the bar that the order dated 26.8.2010 in w.p.no.6995/2007(s) has not been assailed before any higher forum and has attained finality. in view of the specific findings recorded by the writ court that the order dated 7.6.2007 was not complied with by the appellants and the learned single judge, while deciding the contempt petition also recorded independent finding in respect of the breach of the order, has disposed of the matter with aforesaid directions, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the single bench dated 9.4.2012 in con.c.no.1064/2007. as the learned single judge has found it appropriate not to punish the appellants , so we make it clear that in absence of any subsequent disobeyance, by the appellants, of any order by the competent court, the aforesaid recording in the service book shall not come in the way of the appellants, if they are found otherwise entitled for further promotion. with the aforesaid clarification, this appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs. (krishn kumar lahoti) (b.d.rathi) judge judge m.
Judgment:

Con.A.No.12/2012 Manohar Aglani & another Smt.Chhaya Trivedi & others 8.4.2013 Shri Prashant Singh, counsel for appellants.

Shri Umesh Trivedi, counsel for respondent no.1.

This appeal is directed against an order dated 9.4.2012 in Contempt Case No.1064/2007, by which the learned Single Judge while deciding the matter issued directions to the effect that the appellants have committed disobeyance of the order and have wrongly furnished an undertaking before the High Court in Contempt Petition No.1064/2007, be recorded in the service book.

This part of the order is under challenge in this appeal only, but for the ready reference we quote the entire order dated 9.4.2012, which reads thus :- “09.04.2012 Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

Shri Vinot Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.

This Contempt Petition was filed against the respondents for non- compliance of interim order dated 7.6.2007, passed in Writ Petition No.6995/2007.

The petitioner who was at the relevant time working as Lecturer on proforma promotion as Principal, Government Pre-Primary Training Institute (Montessori) Jabalpur, was required to approach this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No.6995/2007(S).challenging the order dated 10.4.2007, by which she was said to be transferred.

This Court while entertaining the writ petition admitted the same, issued the notices to the respondents and granted an interim relief in the following manner :- “In the meanwhile, it is directed that if no person has joined at the place where the petitioner was working in Con.A.No.12/2012 Manohar Aglani & another Smt.Chhaya Trivedi & others pursuance to the order dated 10.4.2007 (Annx.P/5) then the petitioner shall be permitted to work at the said Institution at Jabalpur and in case any person has joined on the post of the petitioner then status quo which exists today shall be maintained.”

It was complained that this order was brought to the notice of the respondents by the petitioner by making an application, but her joining was not accepted though nobody has been posted in her place.

Thus, the non-compliance of the order was brought to the notice of this Court.

The Contempt Petition was entertained, the notices were issued to the respondents No,4 and 6.

In the meanwhile, the writ petition filed by the petitioner also came up for final hearing and the same was decided by an order dated 20.8.2010.

This Court while passing the order in detail categorically held in the writ petition that there was a breach of the order passed by this Court.

Though the petitioner was said to be relieved on 25.5.2007, but she immediately approached the Court and obtained an interim order on 7.6.2007, which was brought to the notice of the authorities, but nothing was done and interpreting as if the interim order of this Court was to maintain status-quo, the petitioner was not permitted to join in the Pre-Primary Training Institute.

It was further found by this Court that a further breach of the order was committed by the respondents by issuing order dated 10.7.2007 transferring the petitioner from Government Pre-Primary Training Institute to Government High School Ranital, Majhouli, District Jabalpur, without taking leave of this Court and without seeking modification of the order of the Court.

It was again found by this Court that ultimately the orders were issued and the petitioner was posted in the Government Education College, Jabalpur.

It was found by this Court that because of such improper attitude of the respondents, the petitioner was not paid the salary for the period she was not Con.A.No.12/2012 Manohar Aglani & another Smt.Chhaya Trivedi & others allowed to join right from the month of April 2007 to August 2007.

However, since the order of posting of the petitioner in appropriate manner was subsequently issued which order was complied with by the petitioner, this Court finally disposed of the writ petition with a direction to make payment of the salary for the period of April 2007 to August 2007 and also to count the said period as duty period for all purposes, count the same for the purposes of granting of Kramonnati and decide such claiMs.In view of all these findings when the response of the Contempt Petition submitted by the respondents was examined, this Court reached to the final conclusion on 14.12.2011 that a contempt was made out against the respondents No.4 and 6 and, therefore, they were directed to remain present before the Court to show as to why they be not punished because of non- compliance of the order passed by this Court.

The respondent No.4 made an application for grant of exemption from personal appearance and thereafter certain replies have been filed.

It is not pointed out by the respondent No.4 that the compliance of the order of this Court has been done.

The petitioner has been granted all the benefits.

Earlier order of the State was of proforma promotion.

Subsequently, an order of posting was issued in respect of the petitioner in appropriate manner.

In view of the sanctioned strength, the petitioner could not be accommodated and was, therefore, relieved for joining in the office of the District Education Officer.

The mistake relating to the posting of the petitioner in an institution where no post of such a cadre was available, brought to the notice of the authorities and the same was subsequently corrected by issuance of the order on 10.7.2007.

The regular promotion of the petitioner was made on the basis of which she was given the right posting and this order was complied with.

This being so, it is contended that there was no contempt committed by the Con.A.No.12/2012 Manohar Aglani & another Smt.Chhaya Trivedi & others respondent and, therefore, he be discharged.

Respondent No.6 has filed a response stating that he has simply complied with the orders of superior authorities being the Principal of the Government Pre Primary Training Institute, Jabalpur.

The very same orders have been brought on record.

Pursuance to the direction issued by the higher authorities, salary of the petitioner was drawn for the period of April 2007 to August 2007 and the same has been paid to the petitioner on 12.12.2011.

Thus, it is contended that respondent No.6 has also not committed any contempt and he too be discharged.

The fallacy of the stand taken by the respondents are writ large.

Respondents No.4 and 6 were noticed of this Contempt Petition.

These were the officers who were responsible to carry out the order of this Court.

They were required to inform the authorities of the State in case any mistake in posting of the petitioner was committed, to rectify the mistake immediately and to intimate this Court about such fact.

Even when the State authorities have written that the posting order of petitioner was wrongly issued and a correction in the same was necessary, such fact was required to be intimated to the authorities immediately.

Even from the letter dated 9.7.2007, it is clear that the respondent No.6 was informed that the fact relating to mistake committed in making posting of the petitioner was noted down by the authorities at State level and they were issuing the necessary orders and this fact was to be brought to the notice of this Court even then, nothing was done by him.

On the other hand, pursuance to the order dated 10.7.2007, the petitioner was said to be transferred and posted in a school at Majhouli, Jabalpur.

It was this order which was sought to be implemented, instead of complying with the order of the Court.

Such an attitude of the respondent No.6 cannot be said to be correct and proper Con.A.No.12/2012 Manohar Aglani & another Smt.Chhaya Trivedi & others action.

Similarly, the respondent No.4 was also responsible for issuing such an order of making change in posting of the petitioner despite the knowledge of the fact that there was an interim order of maintaining status-quo with respect to the posting of the petitioner as issued on 10.7.2007.

The said authority was required to inform this Court fiRs.and should have sought the leave of this Court to make change in the posting of the petitioner and then only to issue any order.

If the authorities act in the manner as has been noted down by this Court in the final order passed in the writ petition on 26.8.2010, it cannot be said that the respondents have not committed contempt of this Court.

Therefore, they are liable to be punished for such conduct.

However, the fact remains that not posting of petitioner has been done in rightful manner and the salary has been paid to the petitioner.

As stated by the respondents, other claims of the petitioner have been granted.

Keeping in view this, taking severe action against the respondents for committing contempt is not desirable.

However, to ensure that such type of mischief may not be committed by the respondents in future, they are called upon to file an undertaking within a period of fifteen days from today, before the Registry of this Court in true sense, stating that such mistake will not be repeated in future.

The fact relating to a direction to furnish an undertaking before this Court given in this contempt proceedings, be recorded in the service book of the respondents No.4 & 6.

This is directed only because it is found that the respondents were grossly negligent in complying with the order of this Court.

Even the order passed in the writ petition was not assailed not the same was set aside by any higher Court.

With the aforesaid, the rule issued to the respondents is discharged and the contempt proceedings initiated against the respondents stand dropped.”

Con.A.No.12/2012 Manohar Aglani & another Smt.Chhaya Trivedi & others It is submitted by the appellants that as there was no post available at the Government Pre-Primary Training Institute, Jabalpur, so it was not possible for the appellants to accept joining of respondent in the said institute and because of this the appellants were not in a position to comply with the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.6995/2007(S).It is submitted that not both the appellants have filed their unconditional apology in the matter.

The appellants may be pardoned and the aforesaid direction of the Court may be directed to be deleted.

Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for respondent no.1 supported the order and submitted that it was a case of willful disobeyance of the order passed by this Court and the learned Single Judge, taking a lenient view issued such directions, which needs no interference.

Before proceeding further, we would like to clarify one more fact that in W.P.No.6995/2007(s).in which interim order dated 7.6.2007 was passed in respect of which it has been found proved that the aforesaid order was not complied with by the respondents, rather there was disobeyance of the order itself, has been finally decided by the Single Bench by an order dated 26.8.2010.

For ready reference we quote the entire order dated 26.8.2010, which reads thus :- 26/08/2010: Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.

Initially when this writ petition was Con.A.No.12/2012 Manohar Aglani & another Smt.Chhaya Trivedi & others filed in the year 2007, petitioner had challenged various orders transferring the petitioner from one institute to another namely Annexure P/8 dated 21.5.2007 and Annexure P/7 dated 25.5.2007 respectively.

It is seen from the records that petitioner was working as Lecturer in Government Pre- Primary Training Institute (Montessori).Jabalpur.

While so working she was promoted as Principal in the pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500/- vide order Annexure P/2.

Name of the petitioner finds place at S.No.314 of the said list.

Even after promotion, petitioner was shown to be posted in the same Government Pre Primary Training Institute, Jabalpur.

It seems that the Principal of the institute found it difficult to post the petitioner in the same school as no sanctioned post of Principal was available in the pay scale to which petitioner was promoted i.e.Rs.6500-200-10500/- and subject of History was not being taught in the said institute.

The Principal, the District Education Officer and the Commissioner entered into correspondence and thereafter by the impugned order Annexure P/7 dated 25.5.2007 was passed transferring the petitioner from Government Pre Primary Training Institute, Jabalpur to the office of District Education Officer, Jabalpur.

When the order Annexure P/8 was passed on 21.5.2007 in this regard and when the petitioner was relieved vide Annexure P/ 7 on 25.5.2007, petitioner approached this Court and record indicates that an interim order was passed on 7.6.2007 and following directions were issued :- “In the meanwhile, it is directed that if no person has joined at the place where the petitioner was working in pursuance to the order dated 10.4.2007 (Annexure P/5) then the petitioner shall be permitted to work at the said Institution at Jabalpur and in case any person has joined on the post of the petitioner then status quo which exists today shall be maintained.”

Con.A.No.12/2012 Manohar Aglani & another Smt.Chhaya Trivedi & others From the aforesaid directions issued by this Court it would be clear that this Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to work in the institute at Jabalpur in case no person has joined on the post.

However as an alternate it was ordered that if any person had joined on the post then the status quo existing on 7.6.2007 should be maintained.

Even though none has joined on 7.6.2007, neither the petitioner was permitted to join in the institute as ordered by this Court.

Instead a modified order Annexure R/4 dated 10.7.2007 was issued posting the petitioner not to Government High School Ranital (Majhouli).Jabalpur instead in the office of District Education Officer, Jabalpur as earlier ordered.

Before the aforesaid order could be complied with another order was issued on 13.8.2007 vide Annexure R/5 further promoting the petitioner as Principal to 10+2 Higher Secondary School and posting her in the Government Education College, Jabalpur where petitioner joined after being relieved on 25.8.2007.

Annexures R/5 to R/7 are the documents evidencing the facts with regard to promotion of the petitioner on the post of Principal 10+2 Higher Secondary School and her relieving and joining in Government Education College, Jabalpur.

Respondents not in the return have come out with a case that as transfer of the petitioner from Government Pre Primary Training Institute, Jabalpur to District Education Officer, Jabalpur ordered by the impugned order is cancelled and petitioner is not posted in Government Education College, Jabalpur and therefore, this petition is rendered infructuous.

Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner refutes the aforesaid and points out that even though petition may have been rendered infructuous with regard to challenge of transfer is concerned but petitioner is entitled to salary from April, 2007 to Con.A.No.12/2012 Manohar Aglani & another Smt.Chhaya Trivedi & others August, 2007 which remains unpaid and thereafter the order of transferring the petitioner to Government High School, Ranital (Majhouli).Jabalpur vide Annexure R/4 dated 10.7.2007 is also liable to be quashed as this order was never served on the petitioner and was only enforced.

Petitioner further submits that certain persons working along with the petitioner and junior to her have been granted krammonati but the same benefit is not granted to the petitioner.

Accordingly, on the aforesaid grounds, Shri Trivedi submits that petition survives and has to be adjudicated by this Court.

Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned counsel for the respondents by taking me through the documents filed with the return submits that as petitioner herself was responsible for not joining at the transferred place, she is not entitled to salary on the post in question.

As far as Annexure R/4 transferring the petitioner to Government High School, Ranital (Majhouli) is concerned, even though Shri Yogesh Dhande submits that the order has been passed and served on the petitioner but the fact remains that the respondents’ return itself indicates that this order was never given effect to.

Instead petitioner was promoted as Principal 10+2 Higher Secondary School and joined at Government Education College, Jabalpur on 25.8.2007.

Having considered the rival contentions and taking note of the submissions made, I propose to take up each issue separately.

As far as petitioner’s transfer to District Education Officer, Jabalpur, is considered due to subsequent development that have taken place and taking note of the fact that she has joined at Government Education College, Jabalpur on 25.8.2007 after she was transferred to the said institute vide Annexure R/5 on 13.8.2007, the question of interfering with the impugned orders of transfer i.e.Annexure P/8 dated 21.5.2007 and Annexure P/7 dated 25.5.2007 and Con.A.No.12/2012 Manohar Aglani & another Smt.Chhaya Trivedi & others Annexure P/5 dated 10.4.2007 does not arise.

Due to the subsequent development and the fact that petitioner has been transferred and she has joined in the Government Education College, Jabalpur, respondents are directed not to implement the orders of transfer namely Annexure P/8, P/7 and P/5 respectively.

Petitioner having been transferred to Government Education College Jabalpur, subsequently vide Annexure R/5 on 13.8.2007 not all these orders earlier transferring the petitioner to the office of District Education Officer, Jabalpur and subsequently to the Government High Secondary School Ranital (Majhouli).District Jabalpur, have become redundant and need not to be enforced.

Accordingly to that extent this petition is allowed.

Respondents are restrained from enforcing the aforesaid ordeRs.Petitioner shall be permitted to work in the Government Education College, Jabalpur where she was transferred vide order Annexure R/5 dated 13.8.2007 and joined on 25.8.2007 vide Annexure R/7.

As far as question of payment of salary to the petitioner from April 2007 to August 2007 is concerned, petitioner was transferred from Government Pre Primary Training Institute to the office of District Education Officer on 21.5.2007 and she was relieved on 25.5.2007.

She immediately approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on 1.6.2007 and on 7.6.2007 the order as indicated herein above was passed.

Once the order transferring the petitioner was stayed and respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to work in the institute at Jabalpur in case nobody has joined on the said post, in all fairness respondents should have fiRs.permitted the petitioner to join duties at the institute and thereafter seek modification of the order or point out to this Court that somebody else has joined and therefore, status quo was to be maintained.

Nothing has been done, instead interpreting the order dated 7.6.2007 as an order of status quo, Con.A.No.12/2012 Manohar Aglani & another Smt.Chhaya Trivedi & others petitioner was not permitted to join in the Pre Primary Training Institute inspite of the order passed by this Court and thereafter further committing breach of this Court’s direction, order Annexure R/4 dated 10.7.2007 was passed again transferring the petitioner from Government Pre Primary Training Institute to Government High School, Ranital (Majhouli).District Jabalpur, without taking leave of this Court and without seeking modification of this Court’s order.

This attitude of the respondents in neither complying with the interim order passed by this Court on 7.6.2007 and not permitting the petitioner to join in Government Pre Primary Training Institute, Jabalpur and passing the order Annexure R/4 is totally uncalled for, unjustified and an arbitrary action and in that view of the matter itself, petitioner is entitled to salary w.e.f.the date it remain unpaid i.e.from April, 2007 to August 2007 when she was relieved to join at Government Education College, Jabalpur on 25.8.2007.

Accordingly, respondents are directed to make payment of the salary which remained unpaid from April 2007 to August 2007 as the petitioner was denied salary for the aforesaid period only because respondents have not taken prompt action for complying with the interim order passed by this Court on 7.6.2007 and without seeking modification or clarification of the order kept on acting on their own assumptions and presumptions.

Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner in this regard is allowed and respondents are directed to make payment of salary to the petitioner for the period from April 2007 to August 2007 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

As far as order of enforcing of the order Annexure R/4 dated 10.7.2007 is concerned as already indicated herein above, due to subsequent development of the transfer, posting and joining of the Con.A.No.12/2012 Manohar Aglani & another Smt.Chhaya Trivedi & others petitioner in Government Education College, Jabalpur vide Annexure R/5, R/6 and R/7, not order of transfer Annexure R/4 dated 10.7.2007 need not to be given effect to and therefore, to that extent, this petition is allowed.

Petitioner in this petition has further prayed to consider her claim for grant of Krammonati as similarly situated persons working upto 1982 have been granted the said benefit and the said benefit is not extended to the petitioner.

Material available on record is not sufficient to adjudicate this dispute and therefore, it is thought appropriate to direct respondents No.2 and 3 to decide the claim of the petitioner with regard to grant of krammonati in accordance with law.

Accordingly, it is directed that on the petitioner’s filing certified copy of this order along with her representation indicating particulars of so called juniors who have been granted the said benefit of krammonati and on the same being done, respondents No.2 and 3 shall decide the claim of the petitioner for grant of krammonati at par with her juniors within a period of two months thereof and communicate the decision to the petitioner.

With the aforesaid, this petition stands allowed to the extent indicated herein above and disposed of, no order as to costs.

c.c.as per rules.”

By the aforesaid order the learned Single Judge while deciding the matter finally has held that inspite of the order dated 7.6.2007, the respondents were not permitted to join in Government Pre-Primary Training Institute, and thereby further committed breach of the order of the High Court dated 10.7.2007 also in the matter.

From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the writ Court while deciding the matter finally has also found that Con.A.No.12/2012 Manohar Aglani & another Smt.Chhaya Trivedi & others the order passed by writ Court dated 7.6.2007 was not complied with by the appellants herein.

It is also stated at the Bar that the order dated 26.8.2010 in W.P.No.6995/2007(S) has not been assailed before any higher forum and has attained finality.

In view of the specific findings recorded by the writ Court that the order dated 7.6.2007 was not complied with by the appellants and the learned Single Judge, while deciding the contempt petition also recorded independent finding in respect of the breach of the order, has disposed of the matter with aforesaid directions, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Single Bench dated 9.4.2012 in Con.C.No.1064/2007.

As the learned Single Judge has found it appropriate not to punish the appellants , so we make it clear that in absence of any subsequent disobeyance, by the appellants, of any order by the competent Court, the aforesaid recording in the service book shall not come in the way of the appellants, if they are found otherwise entitled for further promotion.

With the aforesaid clarification, this appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (B.D.Rathi) JUDGE JUDGE M.