JUDGMENT
The Courts
1. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent has committed contempt of this Hon’ble Court by violating an order dated 8th September. 1993 disposing of a writ application being C.O. No. 19041 (W) of 1992. The petitioner had filed the writ application alleging that she had been duly appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the substantive post in Subdt Debjanl Girls’ High School, referred to as the school on 13th September, 1971. Her appointment was approved by the District inspector of Schools. The petitioner was permitted to undertake B.Ed, training by the Managing Committee of the school for the session 1975-76. She completed the course but when she returned, the Headmistress of the school did not allow the petitioner to join the school. The petitioner complained about this to the District inspector of Schools. He directed the Headmistress to allow the petitioner to perform her duties, but the Headmistress was adamant in obstructing the petitioner. The petitioner then filed a suit being Title Suit No. 35 of 1977 inter alia for a declaration that her service as an assistant teacher had not been terminated. The suit was decreed on 15th November. 1977. The attempt of the Headmistress to recall the decree was unsuccessful. No appeal has been preferred from the decree.
2. The petitioner however could not enter the school nor were her salaries paid. She field a money suit being M.S. No. 42 of 1980 claiming her salaries for the months of May, 1977 to April, 1980 and she was successful in obtaining a decree of Rs. 17,979/-. She has received that amount by way of execution. No further payment being made she had to file a third suit being M.S. No.7 of 1986 for a further sum. That suit was also decreed.
3. Despite this and despite repeated directions by the District inspector of Schools (S.E.), Mldnapore, the school authorities refused to allow the petitioner to perform her duties or to pay her salary.
4. In the circumstances the petitioner moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Stale Authorities. The court directed the Secretary and the Headmistress of the school to allow the petitioner to join the school. it was also made clear that If they did not, they would have to face the consequences. The petitioner was also directed to be paid salaries from the date she Joined her duties and other allowances in accordance with law.
5. The Headmistress, however, refused to obey the order. A contempt application was filed.
6. On 9th February 1991 the Headmistress allowed the petitioner to join the school. By an order dated 26th June 1991 the contempt application was accordingly disposed of with a direction to release the petitioner’s salary. No salary was released.
7. In a writ application filed by the teaching and non-leaching staff being C.O. No. 12352 (W) of 1990 for payment of salary the petitioner was added as a party and was paid arrears of salary to the extent of Rs. 6,000/- and
Rs. 2.000/-. She has been paid her current salary as if she had not been serving for the period after her appointment.
8. On the allegation that the petitioner was entitled to payment of salaries for the entire period during which she had not been permitted to rejoin her duties namely 1st September, 1976 to 28th February, 1991. the petitioner filed the writ application in question being C.O. No. 19041[W) of 1992. The petitioner claimed fixation of her salary in terms of the ROPA Rules treating the petitioner as an approved teacher of the school and for preparation of her service book. The writ application was disposed of by the order dated 8th September, 1993 by which the Director of Schools, Government of West Bengal, (the respondent No. 3) was directed to fix up the salary of the petitioner in accordance with law by 31st November, 1993 and the arrears of salary If she was otherwise entitled to. it Is this order in respect of which it is complained that the District inspector of Schools being the respondent No.5 had committed contempt.
9. On 6th September, 1994 the petitioner filed this contempt application against the Director of School Education and the District inspector of Schools. Secondary Education, Tamluk on the ground that no action had been taken by them to comply with the order dated 8.9.93. A rule was issued on 11.9.95. After being served with the copies of contempt petition dated 25th January 1995 the respondent No.2 informed the Secretary of school that as per Memo No. 3206-G.A dated 21.11.94 passed by the respondent No.1, the petitioner’s pay had been fixed at Rs. 1780 with effect from 9.2.91. No copy of the order of the Respondent No. 1 dated 21.11.94. The direction of the respondent No. 1 in his decision dated 21.11.94 in fact was that the petitioner’s pay should be fixed with effect from 13.9.71 and not from 9.2.91 as stated by the respondent No.2. On 28lh August 1995 the respondent No.l revised his order dated 21.11.94 by stating that the period from 1.8.76 to 8.2.91 should be treated as the petitioner being on leave.
10. When the matter came up before D.K. Basu on 21.11.95, an order was passed directing the respondent No.2 to give a hearing to the parlies on all points involved in the contempt petition. According to the petitioner all the documents were duly forwarded. A hearing was held and a report was submitted by the respondent No.2 again fixing the pay of the petitioner at Rs. 1780 as on 9.2.91. An affidavit in opposition was filed by the respondent No.2. According to him he had acted in terms of the Memo of the Respondent No.l dated 28.8.95 by which he was to treat the period of the petitioner’s absence as on leave as admissible under the rules. it is further stated that the School Authority did not submit the petitioners records for consideration and as a result he was helpless to consider the matter. According to the respondent No.2 the relevant rules provided that as the petitioner did not serve during this period and as she had not submitted any application for leave for her long absence and since her absence had not been recorded in the service book, there could be no fixation of pay with retrospective effect.
11. There is no reference in the report or the affidavit to the several proceedings taken by the petitioner in an effort to join the school. Both the respondents have ignored the decrees passed by the several courts and the orders passed on the petitioner’s application filed under Article 226. When
the petitioner is unable to serve because of the obstruction created by the School Authorities, she cannot be expected to sign the service book nor of applying for leave. No rule has been shown to the court under which a teacher who had been obstructed from discharging her duty can be deprived of her salary and unless she was otherwise employed during this period, the petitioner would be entitled to payment of her salaries. The object of the order dated 8.9.93 was that the petitioner should be paid her arrears of salary. Only the compensation was to be made. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the decision of the respondent was according to law as directed by the order dated 8.9.93.
12. Neither the decision of the District inspector nor of the memo of the Respondent No. 1 dated 28th August 1995 in so far as they proceed on the basis that the petitioner’s period of absence should be treated as on leave can stand. They are accordingly set aside.
13. The District inspector has tendered his unqualified apology. Furthermore it is apparent that the District inspector was misguided by the Memo of the Respondent No. 1 who has not filed any affidavit in these proceedings in answer to the rule.
14. However in order to test the bona fides of the respondents a last chance is given to them to comply with the order of this court by treating the petitioners as if she was on duty from 1st August 1976. Her pay must be fixed with effect from the first day of Joining i.e., 13th September 1971 in accordance with ROPA Rules in the same manner as the pay of other teachers. After deducting the salaries which may have been received by the petitioner pursuant to the orders of the court, the respondents must ensure that the petitioner is paid all arrears of salary within a period of three months from the date of service of this order.
Let the matter appear in the list three months hence to ensure compliance and for further orders.
15. Order Accordingly