Compliance with court orders and disputed questions of fact regarding service can impact the finding of willful disobedience and deliberate breach of court orders.

1. Counsel for the applicant submitted that previously this applicant has preferred a writ petition, being C.W.J.C. No. 5813 of 1997(P), which was finally disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11th April, 2007 and as the said order has not been complied with, this contempt application was filed. It is further submitted by counsel for the applicant that though accumulated salary has been paid but she is not getting the current salary, inspite of the fact that she is still serving the concerned minority school. Another writ petition, being W.P.(S) No. 3371 of 2006 was filed by the applicant for enhancement of the salary on the basis of several grounds including the ground that this petitioner is trained and therefore, trained scale should be given. The said writ petition has also been allowed vide order dated 22nd July, 2013 and the directions given in that writ petition has also not been complied with. Therefore, another contempt application, being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 339 of 2014 has been preferred, which is pending at present before this court and therefore, respondents must pay the current salary at least if not enhanced salary.

2. Counsel for the State, learned Advocate General, vehemently submitted that the order for non compliance of which this contempt application has been filed has now been complied with. There was a two fold direction given by the this court vide order dated 11th April, 2007 in C.W.J.C. No. 5813 of 1997(P). One is about the arrears of salary and second is regarding current salary. In compliance of the said order, for the period running from 1st April, 1994 to 14th November, 2000, i.e. before the bifurcation of erstwhile State of Bihar into State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand, arrears of salary amounting to Rs. 2,47,911/- has been calculated and paid to the petitioner. Second period is with respect to the service of the petitioner in the State of Jharkhand after bifurcation. For this period running from 15th November, 2000 to 31st August, 2005 also the arrears of salary amounting to Rs.2,75,910/- has been calculated and paid. These facts are stated in Annexure B and A, respectively, to the counter affidavit dated 12th December, 2014 and if these facts are accepted by this court then the present contempt application may be dismissed. It is further submitted by the Advocate General that a part of the argument adduced by the appellant today regarding rendering of service by the appellant after 31st August, 2005 is a disputed question of fact as there is an order passed by the State not to take work from this petitioner for several reasons including the reason that she was not legally appointed. This order was challenged by way of a separate writ, being W.P.(S) No. 3371 of 2006, which was allowed and against which the State has preferred a Letters Patent Appeal, being L.P.A. No. 223 of 2014, which is pending before a Division Bench of this Court. Further, in connection with this writ petition another contempt application, being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 339 of 2014 is also pending before this Court. Thus, for the period after 31st August, 2005, no salary has been paid because there are all chances that this Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the State may be allowed. Even otherwise also, whenever there is a disputed question of facts involved, there can not be any willful disobedience and hence no contempt of court has been committed by the respondents and sofar as the order for non-compliance of which this contempt application has been preferred, the same has been complied with in its true spirit and letters as stated herein above.

3. Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to entertain this case filed for alleged deliberate breach of the order dated 11th April, 2007 passed by this court in C.W.J.C. No. 5813 of 1997(P) mainly for the following facts and reasons (I) It appears that this applicant is the original petitioner in C.