IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.128 OF 1993 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1612 OF 1994 Mrs.Saroj Anandrao Dhok ...Petitioner Versus Panchsheel Dnyanpith’s A.W.Thakur Junior College & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Ms.B.D’Souza i/b Mr.M.P.Vashi for Petitioner. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar with Mr.Shimpi for Respondents 1 to 5. Mr.A.R.Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent No.6. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MAY 3, 2006. MAY 3, 2006. MAY 3, 2006. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings. 2. It is seen that the Petitioner was engaged : 2 : as Teacher in the School run by the Respondents with effect from 21st June 1991. However, her services were otherwise terminated with effect from 10th September 1991, which action was challenged by the Petitioner before the School Tribunal. School Tribunal by its decision dated 24th November 1992 allowed the statutory Appeal preferred by the Petitioner in the following terms: "(a) Appeal is allowed and the otherwise termination of the appellant’s service by the impugned letter dated 10/9/1991 issued by the respondent No.2 is hereby set aside and the respondent management is hereby directed to reinstate the appellant to her original post forthwith and the respondent management is further ordered to pay back wages to the appellant from 10/9/1991 to the date of her reinstatement. (b) the respondent management is directed to comply and to report the compliances within 40 days from the receipt of the copy of this judgement. (c) parties are ordered to bear their own costs." 3. The grievance of the Petitioner in the Contempt Petition is that inspite of direction given by the School Tribunal, neither the Respondent Management was reinstating the : 3 : Petitioner in service to her original post, nor offered to pay back wages from 10th September 1991 to the date of her reinstatement. In the circumstances, present Contempt Petition came to be filed on 3rd May 1993. Notice was issued on 28th June 1994. Thereafter, the matter has not appeared for further hearing. 4. Be that as it may, Civil Application has been filed by the Petitioner being Civil Application No.1612 of 1994 seeking interim directions during the pendency of the Contempt Petition requiring the Respondents to deposit sum of Rs.1,24,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty-four Thousand) being the arrears of salary as ordered by the School Tribunal and to refrain from making any new appointment as full time lecturer in A.W.Thakur Junior College. 5. In response to the Civil Application, reply affidavit has been filed by the Respondents. Two aspects which are relevant for our purpose stated in the affidavit, as can be discerned are that the Petitioner after the decision of the : 4 : School Tribunal continued to work in some other institution and has not reported to work in the Respondent College. There is one more crucial fact stated in the reply affidavit that the Junior College run by the Respondent Management in which the Petitioner was appointed, was receiving grant-in-aid. For reasons beyond the control of the Management, it was not feasible to continue to run the said College. As a result, permission was sought by the Management from the State Government to close the said College. That permission has since been granted and the College has been closed as is stated across the bar since June 1994. The fact stated in the reply affidavit filed to the Civil Application has not been countered by the Petitioner. 6. In other words, for the purpose of present proceedings, suffice it to observe that it is not a case of wilful disobedience of the order of the Court. In the first place, the case made out by the Respondents is that the Petitioner did not report to work, which fact has not been countered by the Petitioner. In any case, the concerned : 5 : College has been closed down. If the College is closed down with permission granted by the Competent Authority, it is incomprehensible to hold that the Respondents have wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court. As it is not a case of wilful breach of the order, no case for initiating contempt action has been made out, that too, at this distance of time. Hence, disposed of. 7. It is made clear that all claims of the Petitioner will be considered in appropriate proceedings, if resorted to by the Petitioner in accordance with law. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.