Alice Purty vs State of Jharkhand and Another

Vikramaditya Prasad, J.—Heard the parties and perused the show cause by the opposite party- contemplated contemnor.

This contempt arises out of the judgment dated 20th August, 2002, passed in CWJC No. 2162/99R, whereby and whereunder the respondent No. 4 of that writ petition was directed to make payment of all the dues including the leave encashment within a period of two months from the date of production of the copy of that judgment and if the payment was not made within that period, then the payment would be made with interest @ 12% per annum till the date of payment. The respondents were also directed to fix the revised pension and other dues and to advise the A.G. to issue Authority Slip.

In the original writ, the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi, who was the respondent No. 4 in the original writ, has filed the show cause in the capacity of opposite party No. 2. He has stated in paragraph No. 9 that all the admitted retirement benefits has already been paid to the petitioner. In paragraph No. 16 the following averments have been made :--

''That a direction with regard to leave salary for the teachers of Government aided and minority schools has been asked by this Opposite Party from the Director, Primary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi. The Director, Primary Education, has also asked about the payment of leave salary for the minority school teachers vide letter No. 1555 dated 26.11.2002 from the Finance Department and till date no fresh/new circular/letter in this regard has been received by the answering opposite party.

After the receipt of any circular/letter from the department suitable action will be taken."

The opposite party No. 2, despite there being an order by this Court to implement, was still seeking instruction with regard to the matter of payment of leave encashment etc. and no instruction has been received. On this ground, the opposite party No. 2 has not implemented this judgment.

When an order is passed by a Court-only two courses are open to the respondents - either to prefer an appeal against that order or to comply it. In this case, the opposite party No. 2, who was respondent No. 4 in the original writ petition against whom the order was passed, has not preferred any appeal against the order and now he is taking practically the same plea which he took in the counter-affidavit. Therefore, this approach of the opposite party No. 2, which is evident from the averments made in the show cause, is indicative of the fact that he wants to confuse the matter as a whole by seeking instructions whether or not the leave encashment etc. was payable to the petitioner. This is not the compliance of the order. As the respondent has not preferred an appeal, he is duty bound to comply it. Therefore, one more chance is given to the opposite party No. 2 in this petition to comply the order within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

List this case after three weeks.