1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Contempt Petition No.269 of 2010 In Writ Petition No.4040 of 2005 (D) (Bhanudas Mahadeo Gawande v. State of Maharashtra and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri P.C. Madkholkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Smt. T.D. Khade, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 22nd March, 2011 1. This contempt petition complains about willful disobedience/breach of the judgment and order dated 11-2-2002 passed in Writ Petition No.1174 of 1986. Similarly, it also complains about willful disobedience/breach of the order dated 13-12-2005 passed in Writ Petition No.4040 of 2005. 2. The contention of Shri Madkholkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that this Court by its judgment and order dated 11-2-2002 had permitted the respondent-State Government to consider termination of the services of the petitioner, even though he has put in nearly 20 years of service, on the ground that he does not belong to Scheduled Tribe category, against which he was appointed, with a rider that the State Government may do so after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to prove that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe category. It is urged by Shri Madkholkar, the learned counsel, that the petitioner retired from service on 31-12-2002 and till the date of his retirement, no action 2 was taken by the State Government to terminate the services of the petitioner in terms of the judgment and order passed by this Court on 11-2-2002. He submits that by an order dated 29-2- 2011, the petitioner has been held to be not entitled to post- retirement benefits on the ground that his services were not regularized. He further submits that this course was not permissible in terms of the judgment and order dated 11-2-2002. According to him, after retirement of the petitioner from service, such action could not have been taken by the State Government. 3. I have gone through the judgment and order dated 11-2-2002 and more particularly para 5 thereof. The same being relevant, is reproduced below : “ The impugned order at Annexure B and C are hereby set aside. Petitioner is already in service and consequently there is no question of he being reinstated and he shall, therefore, continue to be in service. However, it shall be open for the State to consider termination of the services of petitioner, even though he has put in nearly 20 years of service by now, on the ground that he does not belong to Scheduled Tribe category against which he was appointed. The State may do so after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to prove that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe category and on his failure to do so, again terminate his services again by giving him opportunity to show cause why his services should not be terminated. In the circumstances, petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.” A bare reading of para 5 shows that there is no prohibition for the 3 respondent-State Government to take action complained of in this contempt petition. If the action complained of is contrary to law, then the remedy is available to the petitioner. However, there is no question of any willful disobedience/breach of the orders passed by this Court. 4. The contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed. 5. At this stage, Shri Madkholkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is no apology tendered by the respondents. In view of the fact that no case is made out for taking action against the respondents for alleged contempt, the question of tendering or accepting the apology does not arise. Judge pdl