1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.232 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM: P.R.BORKAR, J. Date : July 28, 2010 1. Heard Shri Vaibhav Dhage, learned Advocate for the petitioner. 2. The impugned order which is said to be violated is passed in civil application No.1221 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.3932 of 2008 decided on 15.7.2009. Paragraph 4 of the said order reads: " It could thus be seen that the basis of termination of services of the applicant is his conviction by the Criminal Court. The order of conviction and sentence has been challenged by the present applicant before this Court by way of criminal appeal No.510/2007. The applicant has also filed an application No.2824 for stay to the conviction. This court by a 2 reasoned order has granted stay to the conviction. It could thus be seen that only ground on which the order of termination is based i.e. conviction has been stayed by this Court. In these peculiar facts and circumstances, I am inclined to allow the application. Application is partly allowed. It is directed that the non applicants shall re- instate the applicant on the post which he was occupying, with immediate effect. However, it is made clear that, the applicant shall not be entitled to claim any back wages for the period between 17.07.2008 and the date of he is actually re-instated. However, the applicant would be entitled to continuity in services. It is further made clear that in the event criminal appeal filed by the present applicant is decided against him, the order passed by this Court shall stand automatically recalled. " 3. It is not disputed that after above said order, contempt petition was filed and the same was withdrawn on 25.9.2009 when the statement was made that the petitioner had been reinstated in service. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is reinstated. 3 4. Now, it is the say of present applicant that he was not given salary, which according to him, ought to have been paid to him. However, that is a separate cause of action for which separate proceedings would lie. The dispute regarding non payment of salary, as desired by the applicant, cannot be subject matter of the contempt proceedings. 5. In the circumstances, contempt petition dismissed. pnd/cp232.10 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)