1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.167 OF 2008 Sau Pramila Govind More : Petitioner. Versus Rodu Govinda Patil & ors. : Respondents. Shri N R Bubna for the Petitioner. Shri S M Kamble for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Shri F A Mulla for Respondent No.3 Shri A I I Patel AGP for Respondents/State CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : JANUARY 30, 2009 P.C. 1. This Petition alleges contempt of the order dated 15.03.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.8070 of 2006. By the said order the Judgment and Order of the School Tribunal dated 30.10.2006 was confirmed. The said judgment and the order was passed in Appeal No.NSK/21/2005 filed by the Petitioner. In terms of clause (3), of the said order the Respondent-Management was 2 directed to allow the Appellant i.e the Petitioner herein to resume and work as supervisor as per the order dated 22.08.2005. In terms of clause (2), the appointment of Shri R M Narote to work as supervisor was set side as it amounted to reduction in rank of the Appellant/Petitioner. 2. The Respondent-Management challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No.8070 of 2006. As indicated herein above the said order of the School Tribunal has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 15.3.2007. 3. It appears that thereafter the post of Head Master fell vacant in the school run by the Respondent-Management and Shri Narote was promoted to the said post. The Petitioner, aggrieved by the same, filed Appeal No.NSK/4/2007. The said Appeal came to be dismissed on 19/12/2007 by the School Tribunal, Nashik. The Petitioner thereafter challenged the said order of the tribunal by filing a writ petition, which, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted, has been admitted. 3 4. The Petitioner has filed the instant contempt petition on 31.1.2008. The contempt alleged in effect is of the order dated 30.12.2006 as the said order of the tribunal has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by his order dated 15th March 2007. 5. An objection is sought to be raised by the Respondents regarding maintainability of the above Contempt Petition on the ground that it is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 20 of the Act. Assuming that the contempt alleged is of the order dated 15/3/2007, the petition filed on 31.3.2008, is belated. There is considerable merit in the said submission made on behalf of the Respondents. In my view, the Petitioner, in effect, in the above contempt petition, is alleging contempt of the order dated 30/10/2006 of the School Tribunal, but as submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 even assuming that the contempt alleged is of the order dated 15/3/2007 the above contempt petition is beyond limitation and, therefore not maintainable. 4 6. Another aspect to be considered is that the Petitioner appears to be taking a chance by filing the above contempt petition. It would be pertinent to note that in para 2 of the petition there is an averrment, that the petitioner has not filed contempt petition earlier as she was waiting for subsequent promotion and was victimised again. It appears that it is only after the petitioner failed to obtain any relief in the Appeal No.NSK/4/2007, which was as regards promotion of Shri Narote to the post of Head Master, that the petitioner has chosen to file the instant contempt petition. In my view, therefore, in the facts of the present case, exercise of contempt jurisdiction of this Court is not warranted, on the ground of the contempt petition being belated and hence not maintainable, as also on the ground that the Petitioner appears to have waited and only after failing in the Appeal that the above Contempt Petition is filed. 7. On behalf of the Respondents reliance is placed on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2001(1) 5 Mh.L.J. 249 in the matter of Mohammad Salam Anamul Haque vs. S.A. Azmi and others. It has been held in the said judgment that the order passed by the School Tribunal is an executable order under the provisions of the MEPS Act. The Petitioner, since she is alleging non- compliance of the order dated 30/10/2006, should have approached the School Tribunal for getting the order executed if she had found that the Respondent was not complying with the directions of the Tribunal. Obviously, the Petitioner waited and took a chance by filing an Appeal, which, as mentioned herein above, came to be dismissed. In my view, therefore, case for proceeding with the Respondents in the contempt jurisdiction is made out. The above Contempt Petition is dismissed. It is clarified that the Petitioner would be entitled to apply for execution of the order of the School Tribunal dated 30/10/2006 if permissible in law. [R.M.SAVANT, J]