1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR C.P.NO.116 of 2009 IN W.P.NO.1873 OF 2008 AND W.P.NO.1946 OF 2008 (P) Smt.Chhaya Chandrakant Patil and ors. ..vs.. Shri J.S.Saharia and anr. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.P.R.Puri, Adv. for the petitioners. Mrs.Ketki Joshi, AGP for the respts. C ORAM : Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J. DATED : 21sth January, 2010. This petition is filed alleging that the respondents, who are Principal Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, Higher and Technical Education Department Mantralaya and Director of Higher Education, have committed breach of the order dated 18th March, 2009. These respondents have filed affidavit-in-reply to oppose the petition claiming that there is no violation of the order on their part. On 18th of March, 2009 Writ Petitions no.1946 of 2008 and 1873 of 2008 filed by the petitioners were on board for admission. Time was sought for by the respondents to file their reply. While granting the time till 26/3/2009, the court directed that “the 2 parties are directed to maintain status-quo in the meantime”. This interim order is alleged to have been violated by the respondents. Both the petitions have since been disposed off on 14th August, 2009. The above order by itself does not specify the status quo as prevailing on that date. It also does not specify the subject-matter of the status quo. In the circumstances this court will have to first enquire into the meaning of the order of status quo before proceeding to take action for breach of it. For maintaining an action of contempt for violation of any judicial order, it is necessary that the order is specific, clear and not capable of more than one interpretation. Mr.Puri, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that Writ Petitions No.1946 and 1873 of 2008 were filed by the petitioners, who have been appointed since last 6 to 8 consecutive years on contract basis upon consolidated salary of Rs.8000/- per month. Despite the petitioners being qualified for the regular appointment, it is alleged that, the appoints were made against regular sanctioned post lying vacant and despite constitution of regular Selection Committee. There was also complaint that the petitioners were put off with the prospects of not getting even the UGC recommended Scale of pay and 3 allowances. The copy of the petition is neither part of the present contempt proceedings nor produced for perusal of the court. The averements made in the present contempt as regards the two writ petitions filed by the petitioners are also not complete. Therefore, it is not possible to know from the petition as to what were the main as well as interim reliefs sought by the petitioners in the writ petitions filed by them. If it is to be assumed from the general averements made in the contempt petition that the writ petitions filed were for direction to the Government for appointing the petitioners to the regular posts and for giving them the salary as per the U.G.C. recommenced scale of pay and allowances, there can be no order of status quo in that regard. Admittedly, the status quo as on the date of the filing of the petition was that the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis and were not getting salary for the months of May and June, which was the off period for the academic year. When the parties were directed to maintain status quo, without specifying the nature of status quo, the only meaning that can be given to the order of status quo is continuation of the petitioners in service in the same terms as earlier. It is complained in the present contempt petition that after the order of maintenance of status quo, the respondents were bound to pay 4 salary to the petitioners for the month of May and June also, because by the order of status quo they were directed to continue the petitioners in service without any break. It is not possible to read such a direction into the order of status quo. Such an order would amount in fact to changing the status quo and would have had to be passed specifically. The respondents have stated in their affidavit-in-reply that they had continued the service of the petitioners on the same terms and conditions as in the appointment order and thereby maintained the status quo. In the circumstances, it can not be said that they have violated the order dated 18th of March, 2009. Hence, the petition is dismissed with costs. JUDGE. chute