IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11-02-2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Contempt Petition No.81 of 1998 K.G.Hariharan .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Govt. of Tamilnadu, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Education, Science and Technology (HS.II) Department, Fort St.George, madras. 2.Breeks Memorial Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School, rep. by District Collector, Ooty, President, Board of Management of the School, Ootacammand. 3.The Headmaster and Correspondent, Breeks Memorial Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School, Ooty. .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 70/71 to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of Court for disobeying the order, dated 26.09.1996, and made in W.M.P.No.18990 of 1996 in W.P.No.13978 of 1996. For Petitioner : Mr.Govardhan For Respondents : Mr.V.Bhavani Subbarayan Government Advocate (R1) Mr.K.Ravichandrabaabu (R2 and R3) O R D E R Heard Mr.Govardhan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.V.Bhavani Subbarayan, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the first respondent and Mr.K.Ravichandrabaabu the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second and third respondents. 2. This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court, dated 26.09.1996, made in W.M.P.No.18990 of 1996 in W.P.No.13978 of 1996. 3. The petitioner has stated that he was appointed as a Part-time instructor in Computer Science in the second respondent school, on 06.06.1990, to teach computer course for the 11th and 12th standard students. The petitioner was assured that he would be given a regular time scale of pay, within six months from the date of his appointment. Even though he had served as a Computer Science instructor for seven years in the second respondent school, he was not paid his salary according to the regular time scale. Instead, he was paid only Rs.820/- per month as salary. It was further stated that the Government of Tamil Nadu had issued a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.834, dated 23.09.1994, stating that all vocational part time instructors should be regularised. In spite of repeated requests, the petitioner was not regularised in service. On the contrary, the second respondent had directed the third respondent to terminate the petitioner's service by giving three months notice. Accordingly, the third respondent, by an order, dated 12.07.1996, had informed the petitioner that his service would be terminated on 11.10.1996. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.13978 of 1996 to quash the impugned order, dated 12.07.1996. The petitioner had also filed a writ miscellaneous petition in W.M.P.No.18990 of 1996, praying for an order of interim injunction to restrain the respondents 2 and 3 from dispensing with the petitioner's service, based on the third respondent's order, dated 12.07.1996. By an order, dated 26.09.1996, this Court had granted an order of interim injunction as prayed for. However, instead of complying with the order passed by this Court, the third respondent deliberately withdrew the 11th standard computer science class from the month of June 1997 and it was handed over to a private agency called "System International". Consequently, the number of working hours of the petitioner had been reduced from 14 hours to 7 hours per week. In spite of a notice, dated 16.07.1997, sent to the second respondent and to the Chief Educational Officer, no steps were taken to regularise the services of the petitioner. Moreover, after removing the computer cabin the second respondent had asked the petitioner to take up computer science classes with a private agency. Thus, the respondents had committed wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 26.09.1996. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that in view of the interim order passed by this Court, on 26.09.1996, the petitioner has been continued in service and therefore, no contempt has been committed by the respondents as alleged by the petitioner. 5. It has been further submitted that a final order has been passed in W.P.No.13978 of 1996, on 13.03.2006, against which a writ appeal, in W.A.No.1090 of 1996, has been filed before the First Bench of this Court. An interim order had been passed by the Division Bench of this Court, on 29.08.2006, in M.P.No.1 of 2006, in W.A.No.1090 of 2006, which is as follows: "Learned Government Pleader waives service for R-1. Mr.Govardhan for M/s.Row and Reddy takes notice for R-2/Caveator. The impugned direction of the learned single Judge directing the appellants to absorb the second respondent as full time employee is stayed. However, by consent it is directed that the second respondent shall be continued in service as before on a lump sum salary of Rs.1,500/- per month. This order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties." 6. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents have not deliberately violated or wilfully disobeyed the orders passed by this Court, on 26.09.1996, in W.M.P.No.18990 of 1996, in W.P.No.13978 of 1996, as alleged by the petitioner. Hence, this contempt petition stands closed. csh