IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.108 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1950 OF 2002 Dilip Dhannalal Wankede ...Petitioner vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for the petitioner Ms Anjali Helekar A.G.P. For the respondent nos.1 and 2 CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : NOVEMBER 9, 2009 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. According to the case of the petitioner, a breach has been committed by third and fourth respondents of the directions issued by a division bench of this court by order dated 23rd October 2002. According to the petitioner the said direction is in paragraph 4 of the said order. The said paragraph reads thus: 4 We are afraid the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as admittedly respondent nos.3 and 4 forwarded proposal of the petitioner for approval in the month of May 2001 and at that time there was ban on appointment of non teaching staff. The refusal to approve petitioner s appointment by concerned educational authorities cannot be said to suffer from infirmity of law. It is responsibility of respondent Nos.3 and 4 to arrange for salary payable to the petitioner on his appointment as a Peon. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 cannot be made liable to release grant in respect of petitioner s appointment as a Peon. 2 According to the case of the petitioner, the division bench held that it is the responsibility the management to pay the salary of the petitioner. The petitioner made repeated requests to the third and fourth respondents for payment of salary. The case of the petitioner is that as salary is not paid, the third and fourth respondents have committed breach of order passed by the division bench. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order of the division bench has not been implemented by the third and fourth respondents in its true spirit. He submitted that the third and fourth respondents are trying to defeat the order of the division bench. 3 I have carefully considered the submissions. In the writ petition filed by the petitioner, there was no prayer made directing the third and fourth respondents to pay salary. The first prayer in the petition was against the education inspector directing him to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner in the post of peon in the fourth respondent school. The second prayer was for declaration that the ban imposed on recruitment was not applicable to the post of peon and therefore ,the second respondent education inspector was under an obligation to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner. There was no final or interim relief claimed against the third and fourth respondents as regards payment of salary. 4 The Division Bench in paragraph 4 of the order noted that admittedly the third and fourth respondents had forwarded the proposal of the petitioner for approval in may 2001 and at that time there was a ban on recruitment. The observation made regarding the responsibility of third and fourth respondents to pay salary is in the context of the prayer made for directing the second respondent to grant approval. The said observation made cannot be construed as any direction or order passed by the Division Bench against the third and fourth respondents. Looking to the prayers made in the writ petition, no direction was sought by the petitioner against the third and fourth respondents for payment of salary and no such relief has been granted by the division bench. 5 Therefore, this is not a case where an action can be initiated against the third and fourth respondents under the contempt of courts Act, 1971. Hence, the petition is rejected. However remedies of the petitioner under law are kept open. JUDGE