IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Contempt Petition No. 83 of 2008 Smt. Pramila Devi, aged about 57 years, W/O Sh. Sangh Mitra, R/O Qtr. No. A-1285, I.D.P.L. Post Office Veerbhadra (Rishikesh), District Dehradun. …… Applicant. Versus Sh. D.K.Sharma, aged adult, S/O Late Ganesh Das Sharma, Manager, Management Committee, Balbharti Montessori School/Junior High School, Veerbhadra, Rishikesh, Dehradun. … Contemnor/O.P.. Sri M.C.Pande, learned counsel for the applicant. Date June 06, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Sri M.C.Pande, learned counsel for the applicant. This contempt petition has been filed to punish the contemnor for deliberate disobedience of Court’s order dated 19- 03-2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 307 of 2001 (S/S), Smt. Pramila Devi Vs. Committee of Management. By the order dated 19-3-2008, the writ petition filed by the applicant-petitioner was disposed of with the following observations:- “Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is the sole responsibility of the Committee of Management to pay the salary to the petitioner, if work is taken from her. This burden will not be fastened on the State Government. The petition is disposed of accordingly. So far as the question of continuance of her service, the petitioner may make a representation to the Committee of Management concerned and the Committee of Management after considering long past services 2 rendered by the petitioner shall allow the petitioner to continue as Assistant Teacher, if there is no other ground of unsuitability.” A perusal of the record shows that after passing of order dated 19-3-2008, the applicant made a representation to the Committee of Management. The Committee of Management has decided the representation of the petitioner by its order dated 28-4- 2008 holding that the petitioner was temporarily appointed on honorarium in the year 1990 and she did not possess requisite qualification to be appointed as primary teacher. It was also mentioned that the appointment was given to the applicant without any appointment letter on her own request. Prima facie it does not come out that the respondent had flouted the Court’s order dated 19-3-2008. The contempt petition is dismissed in limine. However, if the applicant is aggrieved from the order dated 28-4- 2008, passed by the Committee of Management, she may assail the order (Annexure No. 3) before appropriate Forum for redressal of her grievance, if so advised. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 3 4