Back
1992 Supreme(All) 330
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
P.P. GUPTA, J.
Harbans Kaur - Appellant
Versus
Sardar (Ch.) Narendra Singh - Respondent
Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 943 of 1991
Decided on : May 21, 1992
Advocate appeared:
V.K. Goel
A person may be liable for contempt when the order that is alleged to have been disobeyed is clear, unambiguous, and specific. It should not be a vague order or capable of admitting two interpretations. Failure to obey a vague order is not contempt.
Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURT - STAY ORDER - INTERPRETATION - VAGUENESS - NO SPECIFIC DIRECTION - NO WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE - CONTEMPT NOT MADE OUT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a teacher in a private unaided school, was served with a termination order on the grounds of unsatisfactory work and lack of requisite qualifications. She challenged the termination order in a writ petition and obtained a stay order from the court. However, the school did not reinstate her or pay her salary, claiming that the stay order did not specifically direct them to do so.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the stay order was vague and capable of two interpretations, as it did not specifically direct the school to reinstate the petitioner or pay her salary. The court also found that the school's interpretation of the order was bona fide and that they had deposited the petitioner's arrears of salary up to the date of the contempt petition and tendered an unconditional apology.
Issues: Whether the stay order was clear, unambiguous, and specific.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a person may be liable for contempt when the order that is alleged to have been disobeyed is clear, unambiguous, and specific. It should not be a vague order or capable of admitting two interpretations. Failure to obey a vague order is not contempt.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the contempt petition, holding that the school had not wilfully disobeyed the stay order and that there was no contempt of court.
P.P. Gupta, J.
1. The Committee of Management. Guru Tegh Bahadur Public School, Meerut, runs a Public School known as Guru Tegh Bahadur Public School, Meerut Cantt., Meerut (Hereinafter referred to as the 'School'). It is a private unaided school. This school is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'CBSE' and is a recognised institution.
2. The petitioner, Mrs. Harbans Kaur, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the School on 2-7-1978 to teach Primary Sections. She was confirmed as Teacher on 27-11-91. In view of the good work and teaching experience of the petitioner, she was appointed as Teacher in T.G.T. grade with effect from 2-4-1985 on regular basis by the Committee of Management of the aforesaid school. All along, she discharged her duties as teacher satisfactorily. On 11-9-1990, she was served with a letter terminating services on the grounds that her work was unsatisfactory and that she did not posses requisite qualifications for the post. She was never served with any charge-sheet and was also not afforded any opportunity to show-cause against the termination order. In the circumstances, as alleged by the petitioner, the termination order was illegal. It also casts a stigma on the petitioner. This termination order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 32647 of 1990.
In the aforesaid writ petition, the operation of the termination order dated 11-9-1990 was stayed by this Court on 11-12-1990. The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that though she served the certified copy of the stay order upon the respondents on 20-12-1990, she was never reinstated nor was paid her salary.
3. The respondents filed a counter affidavit in response to the notices issued to them by this Court. The main plea of the respondents is that by the interim order dated 11-12-1930 although the impugned order of termination dated 11-9-1990 was stayed, but it was left open to the respondents either to take or not to take work from the petitioner as Music teacher. They did not take any work from the petitioner and so they were under a bona fide belief that if no work was taken from the petitioner, no salary need be paid to her. It was under this bona fide belief that she was not paid any salary. Further on 15-1-1992, the entire salary due to the petitioner up to 30-12-1991 was deposited in her account. There was no wilful disobedience on their part and in any case they tendered unconditional apology also.
4. In the rejoinder affidavit the fact that the respondents deposited the entire salary due to her up to 31-12-1991 was not disputed.
The learned counsel for both the parties were theard and the record of the case was also perused. "
5. The ad interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 32647 of 1990 is reproduced below :
"Issue notice. Until further orders operation of the order dated 11-9-1990, Annexure 4 to the writ petition, will remain stayed. However, it will remain open to the respondents either to take or not to take work from the petitioner as music teacher."
Obviously, there was no specific direction either to reinstate the petitioner or to pay her this arrear of salary. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. M. Ramaul v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 1171. I am of the opinion that as there was no specific direction in the stay order passed by this Court on ' 11-12-1990 either for reinstating the petitioner or for paying her arrears of salary, technically, no case for committing contempt of this Court is made out against the respondents on the ground that the petitioner has not been reinstated and has also not been paid arrears of salary.
6. A person may be liable for contempt when the order that is alleged to have been disobeyed is clear, unambiguous and specific. It should not be a vague order. It should also not be capable of admitting two interpretations. Failure to obey a va
