Jolly Bhandari vs Rajeev Swaroop

Alok Sharma, J.—These three contempt petitions arise in similar facts and hence are being decided by a common order.

The petitioners were substituted lecturers in different subjects under the Teacher Research Fellowship scheme (TRS) of the University Grants Commission (UGC). Individually, the case of the petitioners in Writ Petitions No. 14958/2010, 15015/2010 and 14959/2010 was that they were not being paid the amount received from UGC specific to the post of "substituted lecturers" held by them. A direction was sought from the court by the petitioners that they be paid salary by respondents as received from the UGC. The prayer was not seriously opposed by the respondents in the writ petitions. In the circumstances this court, vide order dated 29-8-2011, was pleased to dispose of the writ petitions referred to above with a direction to the respondents to make payment of salary to the petitioners to the extent of the amount received therefor from the UGC. The direction was to apply for the duration of the petitioners'' working as "substituted lecturers". It appears that following the order passed by this court, the respondents paid salary to petitioners as per the amount remitted by the UGC for the duration of the petitioners'' actual working.

The petitioners however have filed this contempt on the ground that even though they were paid salary as directed by this court for the time they taught as "substituted lecturers", they were not paid the salary for the summer vacations May & June 2009-10 and May & June 2010-11. It was submitted that for the salary of aforesaid months, notice for non compliance of the order passed by this court on 29-8-2011 was of no avail. Even their Advocate''s notice on this score elicited no response. Hence these contempt petitions.

On notice of contempt petition, reply has been filed. It has been submitted that the petitioners have been paid salary in amounts identical to that received from the UGC for the period of their actually working as "substituted lecturers". It has however been submitted that during summer vacations the concerned colleges were closed and therefore no amount for the said period was either received from the UGC or paid. The petitioners were not entitled to receive salary for the period of the closure of the colleges. It has been submitted that this court had only directed payment of amount to petitioners under TRF scheme as received from the UGC. This has been done. No amounts having been received from the UGC for salary of the months i.e. May & June, 2009-10 and 2010-11, no payment in respect thereof has indeed been made. And in this context of the order of this court passed on 29-8-2011 no contempt is made out.

None appeared on behalf of the petitioners.

Having perused the reply to the contempt petition, and having heard the coordinator Dr. Hemant Pareek, I am of the view that the respondents appear to have paid the amount of salary to petitioners as received from the UGC under TRF scheme for the work actually done by the petitioners as "substituted lecturers". No amount for the summer vacations was received by the respondent colleges from the UGC under TRF scheme. Hence no amount was payable in terms of the court order nor paid to the petitioners as salary for summer vacations.

In the circumstances, by no stretch of imagination contempt of this court, which is a proceeding quasi criminal in nature, is made out. The specific direction of this court have been complied with. The petitioners cannot wrestle relief in a contempt petition, which relief does not specifically follow from the order of this court.

In the circumstances, I find no force in the contempt petitions and the same are dismissed. Notices are discharged.