If an order is capable of two constructions and the alleged contemner has accepted one such construction, it cannot be held that the alleged contemner has committed contempt of the order if he acts in accordance with the construction put by him on the order.

Mrs. Pal, J.

In this application the petitioners have prayed for institution of contempt proceedings against the respondents for violation of an order dated 30th October, 1990 passed in an appeal preferred by the petitioners. The order in question is brief and is as follows:-

"In the mean time the interim order as issued earlier will continue."

2. The appeal arose out of an order disposing of a writ proceeding. While it is not necessary to go into the merits of the writ proceeding a brief statement of the background is noted for the purpose of determining the issues involved in this application. In the writ proceeding, the petitioners had challenged a decision of the Government by which it was directed that teachers of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation who exercised option for the revised scale of pay as sanctioned in respect of them, must retire at the age of 60 years. The petitioners' case appears to be that a teacher of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation is entitled to the revised scale of pay as well as to the right to retire at the age of 65 years if such teacher continued to be mentally alert and physically fit.

3. The writ proceeding was heard and disposed of by K.M. Yusuf, J. who upheld the decision of the Government. In other words the learned Judge held that teachers who exercised their option for the revised scale of pay must retire at the age of 60 years.

4. Being aggrieved by the decision of K.M. Yusuf, J. the petitioners preferred an appeal therefrom. An application for stay was also filed. The said application for stay was moved before the Vacation Bench of this Court. An order was passed by the Vacation Bench directing the application for interim order to be placed before the regular Bench one week after the holidays i.e. on 29th October 1990. It was further directed that "in the meantime the option to retain pre-revised scale of pay of the teachers of Calcutta Municipal Corporation Schools shall not be required to be exercised"

5. The matter was listed before the regular Bench on 30th October, 1990. According to the respondents the matter was listed at the instance of the petitioners on the plea that the interim order would expire on 29.10.90. Be that as it may, on 30th October 1990 the regular Bench gave directions for filling of affidavits and the application for stay was adjourned for 2 weeks i.e. till 15th November 1990. The regular Bench also directed that in the meantime the interim order as issued earlier to continue, as quoted above.

6. According to the petitioners from 17th November 1990 the respondents stopped the salary in the revised scales to the teachers. It is contended by the petitioners that this was a contumacious act on the part of the respondents inasmuch as by virtue of the interim order passed by the vacation bench and continued by the regular bench, the petitioners were entitled to the revised scale without exercising their option. It is further contended that the phrase "in the meantime" read in the context meant "until the application for stay was heard."

7. It appears that the application for stay had come up for hearing on 4th March, 1991 before another Division Bench presided over by B.C. Basak, J. (as His Lordship then was).

8. An order was passed on 4th March, 1991 by the said Division Bench inter alia as follows:

"There will be no interim order for the time being. The said application will be heard along with the appeal and we shall try to expedite the hearing of the appeal itself."

9. When this application was initially moved it was pointed out to the petitioners that the application was defective in form as it as not in keeping with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Rules 1975 relating to this High Court framed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules.

10. An application for amendment was moved by the petitioners for amendment of the main application for contempt. This was allowed.

11. The respondents have filed affidavits in this pro