IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.O.C.P. No.881 of 2009 Date of Decision: 8.5.2009 Prof.Gurinder Kaur and another. ....... Petitioners through Shri Naresh Ghai (Lt.Col.Retd.), Advocate. Versus Mrs.Anjali Bhawra and others. ....... Respondents through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act,1971 (for short, `the Act') has been preferred by the petitioners for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for wilful disobedience of order dated 5.8.2008 passed in C.W.P. No.15413 of 2007 for forcibly taking back the amount paid to them after eight months. The petitioners have averred that the above said writ petition was filed by them along with five others with a prayer that the respondents therein be directed to give them the benefit of their ad hoc service while considering the grant of senior scale/ selection grade as per letter dated 25.12.1998 issued by the University Grant Commission. It was further C.O.C.P.No.881 of 2009 -2- .... averred that the benefit in accordance with letter dated 25.12.1998 had already been given to the similarly situated employees. At the relevant time, the petitioners were working as Lecturers in Government College for Women, Ludhiana. The said writ petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench along with two other writ petitions on 5.8.2008 and after considering the matter, the respondents therein were directed to give the benefit as claimed by the petitioners within seven days. Pursuant to the order dated 5.8.2008, the requisite relief was granted to the petitioners as was informed by the State Counsel on 22.8.2008 on which the date, that petition was disposed of as having become infructuous. In the instant petition, it has been alleged that on 1.5.2009, the petitioners received the orders (collectively marked as Annexure P2) from the Director of Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab (respondent no.2) informing them that their case for award of senior/ selection grade by counting ad hoc service as per letter dated 25.12.1998 has been rejected. It has further been alleged that Principal, Government College for Women,Ludhiana (respondent no.3) has issued memos dated 4.5.2009 to them and is pressuring to pay by 8.5.2009 not only Rs.1,46,724/- and Rs.1,31,167/- respectively paid to them pursuant to the orders of the Court, but also asking them to pay Rs.62690/- and Rs.56215/- which amounts are said to be T.D.S. The petitioners have averred that by issuing letters dated 1.5.2009 and 4.5.2009, respondent nos. 2 & 3 have made them liable for contempt of the Court and, therefore, they should be proceeded against C.O.C.P.No.881 of 2009 -3- .... accordingly. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the paper-book. Concededly, the petitioners were granted the requisite benefit pursuant to order dated 5.8.2008 passed in the writ petition filed by them. A perusal of Annexure P2 reveals that the matter with regard to grant of benefit of senior/selection grade to those Lecturers who had served on ad hoc basis before their joining on regular basis, by giving the benefit of that period, came up for consideration before respondent no.2 and on examination of the service books of the petitioners, it transpired that the whole ad hoc service of petitioner no.1 was not continuous and she had only worked for seven months and eighteen days, whereas the period of continuous ad hoc service of petitioner no.2 was only seven days. It is evident that the circular on the basis of which prayer for grant of benefit was made contemplated that the benefit can be granted only to those who had rendered one year ad hoc service without break prior to the regular appointment. It is, in these circumstances, that the orders have been passed by respondent no.2. Without venturing upon the question as to whether the said orders are justified or not, it will be suffice to say that a fresh cause of action has accrued to the petitioners after passing of those orders and if they feel aggrieved, then they may avail themselves of the appropriate remedy under the law, but under no circumstance, it can be said that there is any violation of this Court's order so as to warrant initiation of proceedings C.O.C.P.No.881 of 2009 -4- .... against the respondents under the Act. On the basis of the above discussion, it is held that there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. May 08,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge