CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Chitra Kumari vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 5 October 2001 · Citation: (2001) 10 JH CK 0022

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.Y. Eqbal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Section 12, 2
CASE NUMBER
Contempt Case (Civil) No. 752 of 2001
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 330 words

The Court

1.

Heard the parties and perused the show-cause.

2.

This proceeding for contempt has been initiated for the alleged violation of order, dated 18.6.2001 See 2001 (3) JCR 550 whereby this Court directed the District Education Establishment Committee, Deoghar for immediately posting of the petitioner.

3.

The admitted facts are that in June 2000 petitioner was transferred from Sarwan to Rohini. Pursuant to that order petitioner submitted her joining but the same was not accepted on the ground that there was no vacancy. The copy of the letter of Principal, Government Girls'' School, Rohini has been filed, which has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the application, the letter is dated 10.8.2001. On earlier occasion also petitioner was transferred but she was not allowed to join at the transferred place of posting on the ground of non-availability of vacancy. In the show-cause it is stated that petitioner''s joining in the aforementioned Girls'' School, Rohini has been accepted on 3.10.2001. Petitioner has also been paid entire arrears of salary. In my opinion the order of this Court has been complied with although belatedly, there is no reason to proceed any further in the mater. However, the facts remain that petitioner has been unnecessarily harassed and dragged to this Court because of in-action on the part of the opposite-parties. This Court, therefore, impose cost of 1,500/- that shall be paid by the opposite-parties. Since the petitioner has already joined in the school at Rohini she will continue there.

4.

After I dictated the order the Standing Counsel submitted that although petitioner has received entire salary but she has not put her signature on the acquittance roll. Let it be clarified that the salary for the next month shall be paid to the petitioner only when she put her signature on the acquittance roll for the entire period for which she already received her salary.

5.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this contempt proceeding is dropped.

6.

Contempt proceeding dropped.