Aparajita Sarangi. elegraph picture

Cuttack, May 20: Orissa High Court today revoked the penalty of Rs 1,000 each imposed on state school and mass education secretary Aparajita Sarangi and two other officials. Justice B.P. Das and Justice B.K. Mishra had imposed the fine on Monday after finding them guilty of contempt of court for non-compliance of an order passed in July 2010.

The division bench, however, revoked the penalty while allowing a recall petition after Sarangi and the other two officials — secondary education director Srikant Prusty and Cuttack circle inspector of schools Brundaban Satpathy — appeared in person before it and tendered unconditional apology.

The court had issued the order on a contempt petition filed by Swarnalata Dei, an assistant teacher in Cuttack’s Orissa Police High School.

The recall petition had informed the court that the school and mass education department had complied with the court order by paying Rs 3,91,670 to Swarnalata Dei in the form of a cheque.

Earlier, acting on her petition, the high court had, on July 20, 2010, ordered for antedating her date of appointment to 2.1.1992 and granting all consequential benefits to her within a period of three months. She had returned to the high court when the order was not implemented.

On April 25, the high court had initiated contempt proceedings against the three officers while giving them opportunity for hearing in person on May 16. As they did not appear in person, the high court had imposed the fine while ordering civil imprisonment for seven days in case of non-payment. Swarnalata’s case was that she was appointed as a trained graduate teacher of Padmolav Balika Uchha Vidyalaya on January 2, 1992, and on February 21, 1994, she was made acting headmistress by the management.

On July 5, 1994, in the renewal recognition form for 1994-95, her name of was forwarded to the board of secondary education, Orissa, indicating there that the petitioner was a trained graduate teacher.

On 29.4.1995, the secretary of the school forwarded the name of the petitioner for approval of her services along with other members of the staff of the school to enable her to enter into the grant-in-aid fold.

But on March 6, 1999, the inspector of schools, approved her service from the date she reported for duty in the school without giving a specific date and did not approve the entire period of her past service. Consequently, she was given salary from July 1999 in the initial scale of pay depriving her from the benefit of increment.