1 CP-337-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 337 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 95 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5708 OF 2008 Miss Shoba P. Pawar ... Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr. A.M.Joshi,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.I.I.Patel, AGP, for respondent no.1. Mr. Sanjeev J.Rairkar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. R.V.Govikar, Advocate, for respondent No.3. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 22nd July, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. In Writ Petition No.5708 of 2008 filed by the present petitioner, the learned Counsel for respondent No.2 i.e. Administrative Officer, Municipal School Board, Pune, had made a statement that in the event the respondent No.3 i.e. Management of the School would submit bill through proper channel after the order of the School Tribunal, as per the scale prescribed by the Government circular, the bill would be cleared. Liberty was given to the respondent no.3 2 CP-337-09.sxw Management to approach respondent No.2 for that purpose and direction was given to respondent No.2 that in case such a bill being lodged, after the order of the School Tribunal, it will be cleared. The School Tribunal passed the order and by virtue of that order, the petitioner has been reinstated in service. She was offered some salary which is much less than the prescribed scale and, therefore, she refused to accept. The Management has not submitted any bill to the respondent No.2 on the basis of the prescribed scale and therefore the respondent no.2 had no occasion to clear the bill. This Contempt Petition is filed alleging that respondent No.3 has committed contempt of the Court. 3. The learned Counsel for respondent No.3 made a statement that the respondent No.3 is not getting any grants-in-aid from the Government and therefore the question of submitting the bill to respondent No.2 for payment of salary of the petitioner does not arise. 4. The learned Counsel for respondent No.2 makes a statement that since the year 2001-2002, respondent No.3 is eligible for 100% grants-in-aid, but the Management has never submitted the proper proposals for approval, fixation of salary, clearance of bills, etc. and therefore so far grants have not been actually paid. It appears that respondent No.3, for reasons best known to him, is not 3 CP-337-09.sxw willing to approach the authorities for the grants. By the order dated 4.4.2009 the Writ Petition was disposed of. Only liberty was given to respondent no.3 to approach respondent No.2 for clearance of the bill. The order does not show that the Management was directed to submit such a bill. Therefore, it is difficult to say that by not submitting the bill, the respondent No.3 committed any breach of that order and thus contempt of the Court. If the respondent No.3 does not want the grants from the Government and if according to the petitioner, she is entitled to salary as per the scale prescribed, her remedy may be elsewhere, but certainly not in the form of the Contempt Petition. 5. Therefore, the Contempt Petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek remedy as may be available under law. 6. As the Contempt Petition stands disposed of, C.A. does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)