1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 341 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 341 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 341 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 65 OF 2006 Smt. Aditi Pramod Tapse ... Petitioner (Org.Respdt.No.4) Versus Vasant Dada Patil Shikshan Sanstha Vikas Sadan &Ors. ... Respondents Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S.Patil, Advocate, i/b. Mr. A.G.Kothari,for the respondent No.1. Mr. R.S.Apte, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. D.A.Patil, AGP, for the State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 27th February,2008. DATE: 27th February,2008. DATE: 27th February,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 2. By order dated 30.8.2006 in Writ Petition No.65 of 2006 filed by the present petitioner, this Court had directed the respondent No.3 - Education Officer (Primary) Thane Mahanagar Palika Shikshan Mandal, Thane, to consider absorption of the respondent No.4, who is the petitioner in the present Contempt Petition in any available vacancy in an aided primary school under his jurisdiction at the earliest and she was directed to be kept on waiting list as a surplus teacher as per the Rules. he Respondent No.4 filed Contempt Petition on 17.9.2007 contending that inspite of the vacancies, the respondent no.3 has not taken steps to absorb her so far and has committed contempt. 3. It is admitted that the respondent No.3 issued an order on 4.10.2007 to absorb the present petitioner in Shreenagar Vidya Mandir Primary at Thane temporarily till permanent vacancy does not become available. On 3.12.2007, he issued second order to absorb her in Ganesh Vidya Mandir at Thane on permanent basis and by an order dated 25.2.2008, she stands transferred and absorbed in Bal Vidya Mandir,Thane, on permanent basis. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 makes a statement that when the petitioner was transferred with 3 a direction to absorb her in Ganesh Vidya Mandir, the said school did not accept giving certain difficulties and therefore, the latest order dated 25.2.2008 has been issued and it is received by the petitioner. In view of this, it appears that respondent No.3 has complied with the directions given by this Court on 30.8.2006. Therefore, nothing survives in the present Contempt Petition. 5. At this stage, Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement that she has not been paid salary for the period when she was surplus and even thereafter. It is contended that for the months of October and November,2007 salary has been paid to her and from December,2007 pay bills are yet to be submitted to the concerned Education Officer. As the present petition is not for recovery of the salary amount but only about absorption, I do not feel it necessary to keep this petition pending. The petitioner shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps against the concerned management or the Education Officer for recovery of the same. 6. In view of the above observation, the present Contempt Petition stands disposed of. 4 (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)