1 CP-272-08.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 272 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1122 OF 2008 Shri Chavan B. Sakharam ... Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. A.M.Joshi,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.I.I.Patel, AGP, for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Shri S.V.Pitre, Advocate, for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 18th July, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By an order dated 24.1.2008, the School Tribunal, Pune, had directed the respondent No.3 to grant promotion to the present petitioner as Head Master from 1.9.2006 with consequential benefits of difference in pay and other emoluments. That order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 1122 of 2008 by Progressive Education Society i.e. the Management. Though that petition was admitted, interim relief was refused. The petitioner was eventually appointed as the Head Master from 12.10.2009. However, he was not paid salary of that post 2 CP-272-08.sxw because the appointment was not yet approved by the respondent no.2 - Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune. The Management submitted a proposal for approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Head Master, but the Education Officer did not grant approval on the ground that one Mr. Pardshi, who was previously Head Master and whose services were terminated, had filed an appeal before the School Tribunal and that appeal was still pending. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed this Contempt Petition. According to him, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have committed contempt by not paying the salary. 3. On behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, an additional affidavit in reply was filed by Prof. Jagdish Chinchore, wherein it is stated that proposal had been submitted by the Management to the Education Officer to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Head Master with the undertaking that the responsibility to face the outcome of the appeal of Shri D.G.Pardeshi would be of the Management and pendency of that appeal should not be linked with the proposal for appointment of the petitioner. Now, after taking instructions, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 makes a statement that the said Mr. Pardeshi has unconditionally withdrawn his appeal from the School Tribunal on 30.6.2011 and, therefore, there is no obstacle in granting approval. 3 CP-272-08.sxw 4. Taking into consideration the facts noted above, it is difficult to say that the Management had committed any contempt of the Court. In fact, the Management had appointed the petitioner to the post of Head master in compliance with the directions given by the School Tribunal. The Education Officer was also justified in not granting the approval because the previous incumbent had challenged his removal from service and that appeal was pending till 30.6.2011. Therefore, in my opinion, there was no valid reason for filing this Contempt Petition. 5. Anyway, now the appeal of Mr. Pardeshi has been withdrawn and, therefore, there is no obstacle in consideration of the proposal made by the Management to the Education Officer, and particularly that the Management has take over the responsibility of the claims of Pardeshi, the learned AGP states that the Education Officer will take decision on the proposal within 8 weeks. The statement is accepted. 6. In view of the above, the Contempt Petition stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)