1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 223 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4063 OF 1997 Smt. Trupti Pravin Manchalwar .. Petitioner/ Applicant v/s. President/Secretary Aryan Education Society & Ors. .. Respondents. .... Shri Rahul R. Singh i/b. Shri P.R. Arjunwadkar for the Petitioner/Applicant. Shri S. V. Gavand for Respondent No.1. Shri A. I. I. Patel for the State. .... CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : MARCH 19, 2010. P.C. The above Contempt Petition alleges contempt of the order dated 18th June, 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Reading of the said order discloses that the Petitioner sought liberty to approach the appropriate Authority in the Education Department for correcting the pay fixation, and liberty was accordingly granted. There were no directions against any of the Respondents appearing in the said matter. In the contempt 2 petition also there are no averments regarding breach of any directions. Be that as it may, since the issue is that of a teacher (the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4), in all fairness have filed an affidavit-in-reply. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit of one Bajrang Dattatrya Puri, Deputy Education Inspector, South Zone, Mumbai, it has been stated that the Senior Auditor (Education) South Mumbai has fixed the pay of Petitioner and said pay fixation has been noted in the service book as on 24th December, 2007. It has been further stated in paragraph six that the Petitioner is getting her revised salary and differences. The Petitioner has filed an affidavit in rejoinder (wrongly styled as a reply) to the affidavit filed by the State Government. In paragraph 4 of the said affidavit, it has been stated by the Petitioner as follows : “ I state that the Petitioner received the salary in S.S.C. D.Ed Scale i.e. 4500-125-700 up till now. She is given the senior Scale i.e. 5000-150-8000 (which is given after completing 12 years of service) late for one year. She received the cash difference according to the 5th Pay Commissioner after two years for no proper reasons and credited the difference in her provident Fund after two years. She received the salary from 01-09-1996 to 31-12-1996 after five months, and the most surprising thing is that she did not receive the valid Appointment Order even after the reinstatement and yet her salary bills are 3 passed by the Education Department up till now.” 2. In the affidavit of the Deputy Education Inspector Shri Puri, it is accepted that the Management has abided by the directions of the Education Inspector in the matter of fixation of the revised pay of the Petitioner as on 24th December, 2007. Taking into consideration the order of which Contempt has been alleged and in the light of the statements made in the affidavit filed by the Deputy Education Inspector Shri Puri and the reply of the Petitioner, no case for proceeding with the Respondents in the contempt jurisdiction is made out, the Contempt Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 3. In case the Petitioner has any grievance as regards the claim for graduate scale, the Petitioner may approach/file independent proceeding for the same which would be decided on their own merits. 4. The Contempt Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. [ R. M. SAVANT, J. ]