Dr. J.P. Gangwar vs Vinay Kumar Chauhan And Another

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that the order passed by Division Bench of this Court has been complied with, inasmuch as, petitioner has been re-instated in service and arrears of salary has also been paid to him, except the period for which he was employed elsewhere.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not gainfully employed elsewhere, therefore, he is entitled to salary for the entire period, during which he remained out of employment. He has drawn attention to paragraph no. 7 of the objection filed by petitioner in reply to the supplementary affidavit filed by respondent no. 1, which is reproduced below:

"7. That the contents of para 6 of the supplementary reply are not admitted as stated hence vehemently denied. It is stated that the petitioner was never appointed in the said college and there is no approval of the Vice Chancellor of the University for alleged appointment. It is stated that petitioner has some times engaged in the said college as Guest Lecturer and only when he used to give lecture he was paid some remuneration in lieu of lecture and there was not prescribed/fixed salary of the petitioner regarding the said working as guest lecturer. It is further stated that the Hon'ble Writ Court has not held in the order allowing writ petition that if the petitioner was employed elsewhere after his illegal termination he would not entitled for salary rather a clear cut direction has been issued by the Hon'ble Writ Court that petitioner be reinstated forthwith and also directed to pay the arrears of salary of petitioner from the date of illegal termination. Hence the reasoning given by respondent that as petitioner was in alleged employment therefore he was entitled for arrears only till 26.1.2020 is absolutely misconceived and is apparently contempt of the order of this Hon'ble Court."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although petitioner was engaged as a Guest Teacher in some other college, but, he was never appointed by the Competent Authority and his appointment was never approved by the Competent Authority i.e. Vice Chancellor of the concerned University. He further submits that petitioner did not receive any salary for the period, during which he rendered services as Guest Teacher, but he was paid some remuneration for the number of lecturers, he gave.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has handed over a cheque amounting to Rs. 5,11,226/-to learned counsel for the petitioner, which has been duly accepted by him on behalf of his client.

Since the order passed by Division Bench of this Court has been substantially complied with, therefore, nothing survives in this Contempt Petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled for some more amount towards salary of 45 days, during which he served in R.L.S. Memorial Degree College, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. If that is so, petitioner shall be at liberty to approach appropriate forum for claiming the said salary.

In such view of the matter, the Contempt Petition is closed.

Contempt notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged.