Contempt proceedings were closed upon compliance, without prejudice to challenging the salary endorsement.

The complainant alleged wilful disobedience of the Single Judge’s order dated 22 August 2025 in W.P. No. 17043 of 2025.

That order directed the concerned respondent to take steps, in accordance with law, to pay salary in terms of the Deputy Director’s direction within two months, and directed the school management to permit the complainant to work at the institution.

In the contempt proceeding, the Block Education Officer filed an affidavit stating that salary for one period had been paid, the complainant’s salary claim had been considered and an endorsement communicating the decision had been issued, and the complainant had reported to a government school on a working arrangement.

The Court considered the affidavit and supporting documents.

1. Whether the respondents had wilfully disobeyed the order dated 22 August 2025 in W.P. No. 17043 of 2025.

2. Whether the steps taken and decision communicated by the authorities amounted to compliance with that order.

The petition was brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which empower the High Court to deal with contempt and impose punishment where legally established.

The Court’s inquiry was whether the order had been wilfully disobeyed; it treated the terms of the underlying order and the compliance material as central to that assessment.

No precedent was cited.

The Court compared the underlying direction—to take steps to pay salary in accordance with the Deputy Director’s direction and the law—with the compliance affidavit and its supporting documents.

Those materials showed that the salary claim had been considered, payment had been made for a specified period, an endorsement addressing the remaining periods had been communicated, and the complainant had reported for duty at a government school.

On that record, the Court concluded that the writ order appeared to have been complied with and did not proceed to punish the accused for contempt.

It left the merits of the endorsement open to challenge through appropriate proceedings.

The Court consigned the contempt case.

It clarified that the complainant could pursue a remedy against the endorsement in accordance with law, if so advised.