1 cp108.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 108 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1750 OF 2008 Shaikh Mohd. Isa Shaikh Khalil Ahmed, Age: 52 years, Occ: Service, R/o. In front of Makka Masjid, Khajanagar, Osmanabad, District Osmanabad. ...PETITIONER VERSUS Mohd. Ali Khan Hayat Khan, Age: 56 yrs, Occ: Secretary of Shams Education Society, Osmanabad, R/o. Near Kala Maruti, Osmanabad and others. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. R.J. Godbole, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. A.S. Bayas, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent No.3. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 22ND AUGUST, 2011 PER COURT : . This Contempt Petition alleges disobedience of the order dated 29-07-2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ 2 cp108.09 Petition No. 1750 of 2008. The Division Bench of this Court passed following order: "(1) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. After hearing the parties, we are of the opinion that this petition can be disposed of by issuing following directions : (i) The respondents within three months from today, prepare service book of the petitioner. (ii) The prayer of the petitioner for annual increments from 1987 is rejected. As the petitioner is receiving increments from 1993, arrears of the same be paid to petitioner not later than 12 weeks from today, if already not paid." 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the service book of the petitioner is not prepared properly by the respondents as directed by the Division Bench of this Court. He further submits that, as per the said order, the 3 cp108.09 petitioner was entitled to get remaining unpaid salary. Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to affidavit in reply filed by the respondents and submitted that, the amount which is calculated by the petitioner and the Education Officer, is not acceptable to the petitioner. He is entitled to get benefits even as per 6th Pay Commission and all other benefits which are permissible under law. Therefore, according to learned Counsel for the petitioner, since the respondents have not complied with the order of the Division Bench of this Court, they be punished in accordance with provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned A.G.P. appearing for the State and State Authorities invited my attention to the affidavit in reply filed by the Education Officer and submitted that, the Education Officer, relying upon the service book prepared by the Management and bills submitted, the amount is calculated and 4 cp108.09 paid to the petitioner. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent - Management invited my attention to the affidavit in reply filed by the Secretary of the respondent - Institution and submitted that, the entire amount for which the petitioner was entitled, has been paid to him. His service book is also properly prepared. He further invited my attention to the affidavit in reply filed by Ex- Secretary of respondent - Institution, which forms the part of the compilation from Pages-66 to 76. He further submitted that, even the chart of payment made to the petitioner from June 1991 to March 2007 is placed on record which would demonstrate that time to time, the amount is paid to the petitioner. It is his further submission that, total amount of Rs. 13,17,659-00 has been paid to the petitioner. Relying upon the affidavit in reply and documents alongwith chart of payment made to the petitioner, learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that, this contempt 5 cp108.09 petition is devoid of any merits and same may be dismissed. 5. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the Counsel for the parties. Upon perusal of the prayers in the Contempt Petition, prayer clause "(D) Respondent No. 3 Education Officer be directed to calculate amount of salary which the petitioner is entitled to get w.e.f. 1987 as per 6th Pay Commission and salary be paid to petitioner by respondents till this date", clearly falls outside the contempt proceedings. Since the petitioner by way of prayer clause (D) is praying the direction to the Education Officer to calculate the amount of salary which the petitioner is entitled to get w.e.f. 1987 as per 6th Pay Commission, would clearly falls outside the scope of this contempt petition. Therefore, such prayer in this contempt petition cannot be entertained and same stands rejected. 6. So far other prayers are concerned, upon 6 cp108.09 perusal of the affidavit in replies filed by the respondent Management and the Education Officer, I am satisfied that the respondents in due regard to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, have paid unpaid salary and other benefits from 1993 to the petitioner. So, the contention of the petitioner that his service book is not prepared from 1987 is concerned, from the reading of the order of which disobedience has been alleged, the Division Bench of this Court has not indicated in its order that the service book should be prepared from 1987. 7. Therefore, if the petitioner has any grievance about the correctness of the amount or his grievance that he should get salary as per 6th Pay Commission, he can take appropriate remedy as available to him under law. However, as stated earlier those prayers of the petitioner cannot be entertained in this contempt petition. 8. Taking overall view of the matter, I am 7 cp108.09 satisfied that there is no any disobedience much less willful disobedience of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. Nothing further survives for consideration in this Contempt Petition and hence, same stands disposed of. Notice stands discharged. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/AUG11