IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYRNA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No.684 of 2005 Date of Decision:- 11.09.2006 Paramjit Kaur & ors. ....Petitioners through Mr.J.P.S.Sandhu, Advocate vs. Tejinder Kaur I.A.S. ....Respondent through Mr.G.S.Cheema, Sr.DAG, Punjab *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT *** SURYA KANT, J. The petitioners, who are working as teachers in Government aided private school, namely, Khalsa High School, Mansa had filed C.W.P.No.896 of 2005, which was disposed of by this Court on 17.1.2005 with a direction to the respondent-authorities to decide their representation by passing a speaking order within a period of two months. Alleging non-compliance of the aforesaid order, this contempt petition has been filed. In response to the show cause notice, separate affidavits dated 8.9.2006 have been filed on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 respectively, which are taken on record. As per the averments made in the affidavits, the petitioners' claim regarding non-payment of salary to them due to withholding of grant- in-aid, was considered by the authorities and speaking orders dated 2.5.2005 (Annexures R1/T and R-1) were passed in this regard. In the aforesaid affidavits, it is further stated that pursuant to the speaking orders C.O.C.P. No.684 of 2005 -2- dated 2.5.2005, the Department has released 95% grant-in-aid for salary with effect from February, 2003 to March, 2006. Besides, all installments of arrears on account of revision of pay-scales with effect from 1.1.1996 for arrears of Dearness Allowance with effect from 1.1.2002 and 1.1.2003, have also been released by the Department. As per the affidavit, the grant of Rs.99,13,389/- has been disbursed to the staff of the School by respondent No.3, who has since been appointed as Correspondent of the School. In this view of the matter and having regard to the fact that the directions issued by this Court have since been complied with by the respondents, this petition is disposed of, however, with a direction that in future also, the respondents shall continue to consider the petitioners' claim for payment of salary in accordance with law and the grant-in-aid scheme. Rule discharged. September 11, 2006 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE