IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA COPC No.: 86 of 2008 Date of Decision: 13.8.2009 Om Prakash …Petitioner Versus. P.C.Dhiman and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the petitioner.: Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondents.: Mr. R.M.Bisht, Dy Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) The petitioner by means of this contempt petition prays that action be taken against the respondents for having willfully disobeyed the order dated 11.1.2008 passed by the erstwhile H.P.State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2260 of 1993 filed by the present petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by his reversion filed an Original Application before the learned Tribunal praying for the following reliefs:- (i) that the respondents may be directed not to revert the applicant to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher; (ii) that the respondents may be directed to pay to the applicant the salary of a Lecturer (School Cadre) for the period he has worked as a Lecturer in Mathematics (School Cadre) and till such time he continues to work as such; (iii) that the respondents may be directed to pay the applicant the arrears of salary for the post of Lecturer in Mathematics (School Cadre) alongwith interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum; and (iv) any other order deemed just and proper may also be passed in favour of the applicant and against the respondents. The main grouse of the petitioner was that the order of reversion had been passed without giving him an opportunity of 2 hearing. The plea of the petitioner was accepted and the Original Application was disposed of in the following terms:- “In view of above discussion and conclusions, the order dated November 21, 1989, Annexure A-2 is quashed to the limited extent, i.e. qua reversion of the applicant and respondents are directed to pay to the applicant the salary of Lecturer (School Cadre) for the remaining period (i.e., w.e.f. 1.3.1992 till 9.8.1998) also if he has worked as Lecturer in Mathematics (School Cadre) within 8 weeks from the date of this order.” Notices were issued to the contemnors and the contemnors submitted that in terms of the order of the learned Tribunal the amount due and payable to the petitioner has been paid to him though, admittedly, not within the time granted by the learned Tribunal. This fact is also not disputed by the petitioner. However, according to the petitioner, in view of the orders of the learned Tribunal he is also entitled to seniority in the cadre of Lecturer without taking into consideration the order of reversion. This was not a relief claimed in the original application nor there is any direction of the learned Tribunal directing that any seniority or other consequential benefits be granted to the petitioner. There is no wilful disobedience of the orders of the Tribunal. The only lapse on the part of the contemnors is that the amount was not deposited within time. This lapse having been rectified, no action under the Contempt of Courts Act is called for. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to claim seniority in accordance with law, if he is entitled to the same. Obviously, the State shall have the right to defend any such proceedings on all grounds available to it. Contempt petition is disposed of accordingly. The notices issued are ordered to be discharged. 13th August, 2009. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge