Nidhi Verma v. V.K. Jain Secretary Shrijainendra Gurukul Sector 1 Distt Panchkula

COCP-2670-2018 Page 1 of 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

110+203 COCP-2670-2018(O&M) Date of decision: 24.02.2026 Nidhi Verma

...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Sh. V.K. Jain, Secretary, Shri Jainendra Gurukul, Sector 1, Distt. Panchkula & Anr.

...Respondent(s)

***

CORAM:

HON9BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Ankur Malik, Advocate Mr. Y.P. Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adarsh Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate for the respondent.

*** NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Contempt petition has been filed alleging violation of order dated 10.08.2018 (Annexure P1) passed in Civil Writ Petition No.19984 of 2018 titled as <Nidhi Verma Vs. State of Haryana & Others=, whereby it had been directed that <In the meantime, operation of the orders dated 2.8.2018 (Annexure P-6) and 6.8.2018 (Annexure P-7) shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.=.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 13.06.2016 the petitioner had been appointed as Principal. However, her

COCP-2670-2018 Page 2 of 5 services had been relieved vide order dated 06.08.2018. Accordingly, by way of the said Civil Writ Petition, the petitioner had challenged the said order dated 06.08.2018. Vide order dated 10.08.2018, operation of the order dated 06.08.2018 had been stayed. However, in violation of the stay of the impugned order dated 6.8.2018 granted by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioner was not allowed to resume her post as Principal and was being harassed by the staff of the school. Even the Security Guard had stopped the petitioner from entering the school. The petitioner had even complained to the Police, however, no action was taken upon the petitioner9s complaint. Moreover, respondent is also in arrears of salary to the petitioner. It is submitted that therefore, the respondent is in contempt of the order dated 10.08.2018 and appropriate action be taken against him. 3.

Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the submissions on behalf of the petitioner and refers to the reply dated 24.12.2025 filed by respondent No.2 by way of affidavit, to submit that first and foremost, the said Civil Writ Petition No.19984 of 2018 has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 30.07.2024 (Annexure R1) as being not maintainable; and the petitioner has been relegated to the Educational Tribunal for redressal of her grievance(s). It is submitted that pursuant thereto, the petitioner has duly preferred Civil Appeal No.2518 dated 29.08.2024 (Annexure R3) before the Educational Tribunal at Kurukshetra wherein the petitioner has laid challenge to the

COCP-2670-2018 Page 3 of 5 dismissal order dated 06.08.2018. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in the said Civil Appeal, the petitioner has also moved application dated 12.05.2025 (Annexure R6) for directing the respondent No.2 to make payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner from July 2018 onwards. Learned Senior Counsel submits that therefore, the present Contempt Petition be dismissed. 4.

No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail. 5.

A perusal of the case file reveals that vide order dated 10.08.2018 passed by the Writ Court the operation of the order dated 6.8.2018 whereby petitioner had been relieved from post of Principal, was stayed. However, subsequently it was brought to the notice of the Writ Court that the second respondent before the Writ Court namely Manjula had already joined the post of Principal vide order dated 05.06.2017; whereas the petitioner had filed Writ Petition on 10.08.2018. As such, the order dated 10.08.2018 was modified by the Writ Court vide order dated 31.08.2018, and it was directed that the respondent No.2 shall continue to work as Principal. The said order dated 31.8.2018, passed by predecessor Bench is as follows: - <CM-12563-CWP-2018 No ground is made out to pre-pone the matter at this stage. The application is dismissed.

Keeping in view that respondent No.2 has joined on 5th June, 2017 and petitioner filed the present writ petition on 10th August, 2018, respondent No.2 will continue to work as Principal.

COCP-2670-2018 Page 4 of 5 CM.No. 12632 -CWP of 2018 Application is allowed and applicant-Manjula, W/o Ajesh Kumar Goel, R/o H.No.1472, Urban Estate, Sector-7, Kurukshetra, is ordered to be impleaded as Respondent No.4. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Registry is directed to do the needful.= 6.

It may also be pointed out that petitioner has previously also filed COCP-2670-2018 alleging violation of order dated 10.08.2018. However, in the said COCP vide order dated 27.09.2018 (Annexure A1), it was observed as follows: - <Learned counsel for the respondent has produced an order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the writ Court, whereby the order dated 10.08.2018 passed by this Court stands modified, according to which Ms.Manjula wife of Sh.Ajesh Kumar Goel having joined on 05.06.2017 as a Principal was allowed to continue to work as Principal. He further states that all arrears, which the petitioner would be entitled to as per the order dated 10.08.2018 (Annexure P-1) will be paid to her within a period of two weeks.

It is made clear that in the light of the order dated 31.08.2018, the petitioner would not be required to attend the School and would be paid the salary of the Principal, which she was drawing prior to the order of termination as passed by the respondent till the order dated 10.08.2018 is either withdrawn/modified or the writ petition is finally decided.

List on 14.11.2018.=

COCP-2670-2018 Page 5 of 5 7.

Thus, contempt of order dated 10.8.2018, is not maintainable as the said order stood modified vide order dated 31.8.2018. 8.

It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to salary for the period up to 30.07.2024. However, admittedly the said issue is pending consideration before the learned Educational Tribunal by way of the application (Annexure R6) moved by the petitioner in this behalf. From the above facts, it is clear that the appropriate authority as per law is well apprised of the entire grievances sought to be raised by the petitioner. Thus, no cause of action survives to the petitioner. 9.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to dispute or controvert that the above facts.

10.

In view of the above, present petition stands dismissed. 11.

Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 24.02.2026 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No