1 307.11-cp-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 462 OF 2010 Shri. Pravin Pandurang Shinde. ... Petitioner. V/s. Dr.S.K.Mahajan, I/C Director of Technical Education. ... Respondent. Petitioner in person. A.I.Patel, A.G.P. for the respondent. WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 307 OF 2011 Pravin Pandurang Shinde. ... Petitioner. V/s. Governing Council, Dr.D.Y.Patil Pratishthan and others. ... Respondents. Petitioner in person. L.M.Acharya for respondent No.1 A.I.Patel, A.G.P. for respondent No.3. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATED : 17th October 2011. P.C. : These two contempt petitions are filed by the present petitioner, who is appearing in person, against respondents. The prayers made in Contempt Petition No.462/2010 are as under: “(1) Issue Rule in this Contempt Petition. (2) To allow this Contempt Petition with costs 2 307.11-cp-- throughout. (3) To decide and declare that Respondent No.1 has failed to protect interests of student community of Polytechnic 134 & Polytechnic 137 as per order/direction (copy as annexed) issued by Honourable President of India. (4) To decide & declare that Respondent No.1 has failed in duty to assist the Honourable Presiding Officer, School Tribunal at Pune in discharging its duty. (5) To decide & declare that Respondent No.1 has failed in duty to assist the Petitioner herein above to receive the fruits of Judgment & Order Appeal No.82 of 1996 and Appeal No.2 of 2004 passed by Honourable Presiding Officer, School Tribunal at Pune. (6) To decide & declare that Respondent No.1 has failed in duty to assist the Petitioner herein above to receive the fruits of Order/s dated 24/04/2008, 21/07/2008 & 12/10/2009 in Writ Petition No.1407 of 2008 passed by Honourable High Court. (7) To take action on the Contemnor under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act 1950 &/or Contempt of Court’s Act 1971, as per provisions of law for failure to assist Petitionr to secure relief as per Order/s passed dated 12/10/2009 in WP 1407 of 2008, CP 418 of 2009 and comply with Order passed by Honourable High Court at Mumbai in WP 5503 of 2010. (8) Respondent No.1 be held responsible & liable for punishment to perform duty as per provisions of law. Respondent No.1 be also held responsible and liable for punishment to perform duty and to provide relief in reasonable time as per provisions of law. (9) To decide and declare that Respondent No.1 is unfit for Public Service. (10) Any other just & equitable and suitable order as may be deemed fit in interest of justice.” The prayers made in Contempt Petition No.307/2011 are as under: 3 307.11-cp-- “(1) Issue Rule in this Contempt Petition. (2) To allow this Contempt Petition with costs throughout. (3) To decide and declare that Rs.11,52,853/0 deposited with Registrar of High Court at Mumbai as referred in Contempt Petition No.418 of 2010 as “Part & / or Payment of Monthly Salary of Petitioner as employee of Polytechnic 101. (4) To direct Respondent Management to provide details of Salary as deposited by it, to Petitioner as employee of Polytechnic 101 as referred in [3] herein above, on records of present matter. (5) To direct Registrar of this Court to pay the sum of Rs.11,52,853/- into Savings Account to Petitioner with Bank of Baroda A/c. No. 07230100005662, branch at Pimpri, Pune 411 018. (6) This Honourable Court may further be pleased to decide & declare that “NO MONEY” has been deposited by Petitioner/s of Writ Petition 1407 of 2008 in pursuance of High Court Order dated 21/07/2008 & High Court Order dated 12/10/2009. (7) To take action on the Contemnor/s under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act 1950 & / or Contempt of Courts Act 1971, as per provisions of law for willful disobedience of High Court Order dated 21/07/2008 & High Court Order dated 12/10/2009. (8) To re-open Contempt Petition 418 of 2009 for executing the order of School Tribunal at Pune Appeal No.82 of 1996 decided on 31/03/2000 or any other appropriate directions for executing said order, as may be deemed fit in interest of justice. (9) To award damages, financial losses etc. which the Petitioner had to incur on account of act/s of Respondent/s herein above, as per provision of law. (10) To issue order/s or directions to Respondent/s :Not to disturb the Petitioner herein above (and family members) henceforth in any manner whatsoever. (11) Any other relief as may be deemed fit in the 4 307.11-cp-- interest of justice.” 2. It is to be noted that the sole respondent in Contempt Petition No.462/2010, who is respondent No.3 in Contempt Petition No.307/2011, was not party to any of the proceedings. Apart from this, the directions sought by the contempt petitioner in these petitions are not capable of being granted by this Court while dealing with the contempt petitions. 3. The contempt petitioner was employed with Y.B.Patil Polytechnic Institute run by Dr.D.Y.Patil Pratishthan as a Lecturer in Electrical Engineering. His services were terminated in April 1996 which order was challenged by the contempt petitioner by filing Appeal No.82/1996 before the School Tribunal, Pune. The School Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed reinstatement of the contempt petitioner with back wages by virtue of the order dated 31st March 2000. A writ petition raising exception to the order passed by the School Tribunal, presented by the Management, came to be dismissed. It is further transpired that, (according to respondent No.3 in Contempt Petition No.307/2011), the said order was complied with and the petitioner was permitted to report duty. It appears that in 2003, action was initiated against the contempt petitioner and he was dismissed from service vide order dated 30th December 2003. The order of dismissal was a subject matter of challenge in Appeal No.2/2004 presented by the contempt petitioner before the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal allowed the said appeal and set aside the order of termination of the contempt petitioner and directed his reinstatement with full back wages. The management challenged the order passed in 5 307.11-cp-- Appeal No.2/2004 by presenting Writ Petition No.1407/2008 which is admitted by this Court and the order passed by the School Tribunal is stayed, subject to deposit of amount payable towards back wages. It is also directed by learned single Judge of this Court that on deposit of the amount by the Management, the same shall be invested in any nationalized bank. It transpires that the amount of back wages of Rs. 11,52,083/- has been deposited by the Management which has been invested in a nationalized bank. An application was presented seeking withdrawal of accrued interest on the deposited amount. The said application was allowed by the Court and the contempt petitioner was permitted to withdraw the amount of interest. In the meantime, it also transpires that the contempt petitioner moved three different contempt petitions which came to be dismissed. The Contempt Petition No. 445/2005, which was presented by the petitioner, was dismissed on 13th January 2009 by the learned single Judge of this Court. In paragraphs- 4 and 5 of the order, the Court has recorded thus: “4. In so far as the allegation of the petitioner that the amount of the backwages deposited by the respondent No.1-management is incorrect, the petitioner has filed Civil Application bearing (ST) No.19075 of 2008 for the said purpose. In so far as the grievance of the petitioner that the backwages deposited by the respondent No.1- management ought to have been with accrued interest, looking to the Order dated 24th April, 2008, there is no such direction for depositing the amount with accrued interest and the direction is only as regards deposit of backwages. In the teeth of the said order, the said grievance of the petitioner is misconceived. 1. 5. The petitioner in the above Contempt Petition has also prayed for various reliefs which in my view would not lie within the jurisdiction of a Contempt Court. Since the 6 307.11-cp-- Writ Petition filed by the respondent No.1- management is as yet pending, the petitioner can file appropriate application in the said Writ Petition, if so advised. In that view of the matter no case for proceeding against respondent is made out. The above Contempt Petition is accordingly dismissed. ” The Contempt Petition No.418/2009, presented by the petitioner, came to be dismissed by this Court on 15th April 2010. In paragraphs- 3 and 4 of the order it is observed as under: “3. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to interest at a particular rate which has not been paid to him. As pointed out in the order dated 13.1.2009 in Contempt Petition No.445 of 2008, this Court has given liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate application in the Writ Petition seeking relief which he wants. If the payment has not been properly made or calculation of interest has not been properly made in such application, the Court can pass appropriate order determining the actual amount to be paid on calculation of interest at particular rate. That cannot be done in Contempt Petition. 4. Taking into consideration these circumstances, I do not find any substance in the Contempt Petition. Therefore, the Contempt Petition stands dismissed. : Again third contempt petition being Contempt Petition No.15/2010 was moved by the petitioner which also came to be dismissed by this Court on 7th October 2010. These are the fourth and fifth contempt petitions presented by the contempt petitioner. 7 307.11-cp-- 4. The contempt petitioner has relied upon the various judgment, viz., Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 1795; Noorali Babul Thanewala v. Sh.K.M.M.Shetty, AIR 1990 SC 464(1); Lalappa Lingappa v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 852; Saindranath s/o Jagannath Jawanjal v. Pratibha Shikshan Sanstha, 2007 (3) Mh.L.J. 753 and Vilas Shankarrao Deshmukh v. S.A.Ghode, 2000 (1) Mh.L.J. 261. However, the judgments cited are not relevant for consideration of these contempt petitions. As I have already stated above, the prayers made in these contempt petitions are not capable of being granted by this Court. No case is made out for consideration of the contempt petitions tendered by the petitioner. Hence both the contempt petitions are dismissed. (R.M.BORDE, J.)