1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 24. CONTEMPT PETITION No. 246 OF 2008 IN WP/1254/2007 ( Dr. (Smt). Arti Jayprakash Borse Vs. The State) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. S.B.Talekar, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. V.B.Ghatge, AGP, for respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:25/11/2010 1. On 5.4.2007, the Division Bench passed following order: “ Till further orders, the petitioner shall not be replaced by another ad hoc appointee.” This order is again clarified by subsequent order dt.16.1.2008 in C.A. no.5100/2007 ( Page No.16). Paragraph No.2 thereof reads as under: “ This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad Bench, dated 12.9.2006. This 2 Court, by its order dated 5.4.2007, had directed that the petitioner shall not be replaced by another ad hoc employee. The petitioner has averred in the application that the petitioner is in service. If the petitioner is in service, the petitioner is entitled to the salary to which she is legally entitled and which she was being paid earlier. In the light of that, the application is allowed by directing the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner, if the petitioner is in service. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. “ 2. The State moved C.A.No. 3226/2008 before the learned Division Bench and on 15th April, 2008, said application is permitted to be withdrawn and dismissed. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is, inspite of there being order flowing in her favour and she having served in the Department as Medical Officer, communication dt.17th/18th July, 2008 ( Page No.19) and 28th July, 3 2008 (Page No.21) are addressed to the Superintendent of the Hospital who is incidentally her husband. In the said communication her husband is warned that illegitimate salary is discharged in favour of the petitioner and it should be recovered from the petitioner. 4. Mr. Talekar, learned Counsel, submits that this is the grievance and attracts action for breach of the orders of this Court dt. 5.4.2007. 5. Learned A.G.P. submits, the purport of the order has to be construed in proper perspective as the Government is not injuncted either to discontinue the post or not to appoint a permanent appointee. If no extension is granted to the petitioner, there will not be any flowing of right in favour of the petitioner to stake claim to the post by taking recourse to the order dt.5.4.2007. I endorse this position. Therefore, no contempt. Application lacks merit, 4 dismissed. No costs. The parties shall ensure to get Writ Petition No.1254/2007 disposed of expeditiously. Liberty to the petitioner to approach before the writ Court if she feels that the process of recovery is erroneous and uncalled for. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/246-08cp