1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Contempt Petition No. 155 of 2007 (Prakash Haribhau Balbaudhe Vs. Janrao Chandrabhan Raut & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.A. Gordey, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Paliwal, Adv. For R-1 and 2. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 15 th January, 2009 By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks initiation of action against the respondents under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for deliberate disobedience of the order passed by the division bench of this Court on 22/11/2006 in Writ Petition No. 5682/2006 and punish them in accordance with law. It appears that the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 5682/2006 seeking arrears of salary from the respondents. The division bench of this Court had, while disposing of the writ petition vide order dated 22nd of November, 2006, permitted the petitioner to make a representation to the 2 Management for release of salary for the period from June, 2001 till the filing of the petition, within a period of two weeks. The court observed that if such representation was made by the petitioner, the Management should take a decision on the representation on its own merits in accordance with law and procedure applicable in that regard, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. It is the case of the petitioner that the representation was submitted to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 on 1/12/2006 and thereafter on 30/3/2007 and 23/4/2007. However, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 failed to take any action on the representation and to decide the same within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt thereof. In these circumstances, the contempt petition is filed to initiate action against the respondents. By an affidavit, it was appointed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 that the manging body of the Society had passed a resolution on 16/12/2006 stating therein that the appointment of the petitioner was made without seeking permission from the Charity 3 Commissioner and since the appointment of the petitioner was made by the Body of Fit Persons illegally, the arrears of salary ought to have been paid by the Body of Fit Persons. It is stated in the affidavit that by a communication dated 18/12/2006, the petitioner was informed that the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with law. Thus, it is the case of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 that the representation of the petitioner was decided by the Managing Committee of the Society on 16/12/2006 and the order passed by the division bench of this Court on 22nd of November, 2006, was complied with. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent nos. 1 and 2, that during the pendency of this contempt petition, after the approval was granted by the Education Officer to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Librarian, the petitioner has joined the duties with effect from 14/1/2009. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Education Officer has, in the 4 meanwhile, granted an approval to the appointment of the petitioner during the academic sessions 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. It appears that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000/- in this Court in terms of the order passed by this Court on 17th of September, 2008. Though it is vehemently submitted on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 that the respondent nos. 1 and 2, the present management of the Society, are not aware as to whether the Body of Fit Persons who had made the appointment of the petitioner, had paid the salary of the petitioner from the year 2001-2002 till the present body assumed office, it is now stated that the present body has not paid the salary to the petitioner for the year 2005-2006. In this background, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs. 50,000/- deposited by the respondent no.2 in this Court towards the arrears of salary payable to him. It appears from the documents produced in the contempt petition and the orders annexed thereto that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 had decided the representation of 5 the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the manner in which it has been decided by the respondent nos. 1 and 2, the petitioner may take appropriate action as advised. It is, however, not in the interest of justice to continue the proceedings against the respondent nos. 1 to 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the contempt proceedings against the respondents are hereby dropped. The notice issued by this Court on 24th of July, 2007, stands discharged. The contempt petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP