Non-compliance with court orders does not constitute contempt if it is not 'wilful', and if ambiguities arise in the interpretation of compliance.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. The instant contempt petition has been filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking initiation of contempt proceedings for the alleged non-compliance of the Judgement dated 07.03.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 5685 of 2016.

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the instant petition are that the Petitioner herein had filed W.P.(C) 5685 of 2016 seeking:

(i). Quashing of inquiry proceedings against him by setting aside of Orders dated 13.05.2016, 03.06.2016, 08.06.2016, and subsequent Orders of the Inquiry Officer.

(ii). Payment of monetary emoluments to the Petitioner as per Fifth and Sixth Pay Commission Reports which had become applicable to schools in Delhi, including the Respondent No.2 therein/School wherein the Petitioner had been working as the Vice-Principal.

3. Vide Judgement dated 07.03.2017, this Court allowed the writ petition filed by the Petitioner to the extent that the Petitioner would be granted the monetary emoluments from 16.06.2013 till 29.09.2016 within a period of three months from the date of the Judgement. Furthermore, it was directed that in case the said amount was not paid to the Petitioner within those three months, the Petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date the amounts became due. The relevant portion of the Judgement has been reproduced as followed:

"4. In view of the factual position emanating from the record that petitioner has not been paid monetary emoluments as per Fifth and Sixth Pay Commission Reports, but which can only be granted for a period prospectively from the date of three years before filing of the writ petition i.e. from 16.6.2013 and till the petitioner's services were terminated on 29.9.2016, accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that petitioner will be granted aforesaid monetary emoluments from 16.6.2013 till 29.9.2016 within a period of three months from today. In case, the said amount is not paid to the petitioner within three months from today, then the petitioner will be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum simple from the date the amounts became due to the petitioner from the respondent no. 2/school. So far as the prayer pertaining to challenge to the inquiry proceedings is concerned, the same is dismissed as infructuous with liberty granted to the petitioner to challenge the order of the disciplinary authority dated 29.9.2016 imposing the punishment of dismissal of services of the petitioner."

4. Mr. Manish Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner herein has been paid only Rs.6,56,412/- vide Cheque No. 011601 dated 01.06.2017 for the period between 16.06.2013 to 20.03.2015. He states that the salary between 21.03.2015 to 29.09.2016 has been withheld and this conduct of the Respondent is in blatant violation of the directions rendered by this Court in the Judgement dated 07.03.2017.

5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that a letter dated 19.06.2017 had been written to the Respondent seeking compliance of the Judgement dated 07.03.2017, and payment of the remaining arrears. The letter further noted that the calculation sheet did not reflect whether the fixation of the amount that was to be paid to the Petitioner was under the 5th or 6th Pay Commission, and the Petitioner also sought for the supply of her entire Service