: 1 : rp a IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE SIDE SIDE SIDE CONTEMPT CONTEMPT CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 109 OF 2006 PETITION NO. 109 OF 2006 PETITION NO. 109 OF 2006 Mr.Rajendra Vijay Kulkarni .. Petitioner V/s. Mr.A.B.Shinde & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.N.R.Bubnma for the Petitioner. . Mr.V.D.Barvankar for Respondent No.1. . Mr.Balsara with Mr.C.D.Patil i/b. M/s.Dayal & Associates for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. . Mr.C.G.Gavenkar for Respondent No.6. . Mr.G.P.Mulekar, AGP for Respondent No.8. . CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED DATED DATED : 10TH OCTOBER, 2008. : 10TH OCTOBER, 2008. : 10TH OCTOBER, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. :- :- :- . The Petitioner has filed this contempt Petitioner for the alleged violation by an order dated 1st September, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune Region, Pune. Paragraph 15(2) and (3) of the operative part of the order reads as under :- "1. The Appeal is allowed. 2. Respondent No.1 & 2’s act in otherwise terminating Appellant’s services w.e.f. 5/10/2002 or in the : 2 : alternative from 6.2.2003 is hereby set aside. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are hereby ordered to reinstate the Appellant’s services from 5.10.2002 or in the alternative from 6.2.2002 with full backwages within a period of one month from the date of this order." 2. Respondent No.1 in the contempt petition was Respondent No.1 before the School Tribunal and Respondent No.4 in the Contempt Petition was Respondent No.2 before the School Tribunal. Respondent No.4 in the Contempt Petition is he Petrochemicals Pre-Primary and Primary School, Nagothane, Disrict-Raigad through the Head Master/Mistress. Submissions were made on the merits of the matter. The same however, are not relevant. The only question is whether the order has been complied with or not. Any grievance against the order on merits must be agitated by adopting appropriate procedures. 3. It is pertinent to note that the order of appointment in respect of the Petitioner was issued by Respondent No.4. At the time of appointment, Respondent No.1 was managing Respondent No.4. It is common ground that the Management of Respondent No.4 was transfer to Respondent No.3 with effect from 13th April, 2004. Respondent No.3 continues to be in : 3 : Management of Respondent No.4. 4. In the circumstances, the effect of the said order of the School Tribunal would be that Respondent No.4 is responsible to implement the order in its entirety. Respondent No.1 would be liable to implement the order upto an inclusive of 31st April, 2004, thereafter the liability would be of Respondent No.3. 5. The order, therefore, has not been implemented. I, however, do not intend taking any action for Contempt of Court as I will presume in their favour that they were under a genuine misapprehension regarding their liability in law. Their liability however, is now clear. They shall implement the order within 12 weeks from today. 6. Mr.Balsara stated that Respondent No.4 wishes to seek a clarification of the said order. That, the parties are always entitled to do. In the event of the order being clarified or modified by any competent authority or Court, it is always open to the parties to adopt appropriate proceeding including in respect of this order. In the event of their failing to do so, the Petitioner is at liberty to adopt further proceedings including in the present Contempt : 4 : Petition, although the same has been disposed of. (S.J.VAZIFDAR, (S.J.VAZIFDAR, (S.J.VAZIFDAR, J.) J.) J.)