- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION No. 371 OF 2005 Satish Pandurang Salunkhe ... Petition Vs. Hake Vasantkumar & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. I. M. Khairadi, for petitioner. Mrs. S. S. Bhende, Govt. Pleader for respondent No. 1. Mr. G. N. Salunkhe, for respondent No. 3. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : JUNE 11, 2009. PC :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 and 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the orders dated 12th January 2005 passed below Exhibit 35 and also the order dated 8th February 2005 below Exhibit 43, in Misc. Application No. 1 of 2003 passed by the School Tribunal, Pune Region, Solapur, are not complied with. 2. So far as order 8th February 2005 is concerned, the First respondent Education Officer was directed to deduct an amount of Rs.4,37,439/- out of the non salary dues of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and the same further directed to be transferred into Savings Bank Account of the petitioner. There is no dispute that - 2 - respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Management preferred writ petition being Writ Petition No. 9899 of 2004, challenging the order, directing reinstatement of the petitioner and stay has been granted in the said writ petition to the order of reinstatement, subject to payment of back wages to the petitioner, by the order dated 20th June 2005 of this Court. There is no further dispute that back-wages are already paid to the petitioner by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In this view of the matter, there is no reason for the respondent No.1 to deduct the said amount, as per the order dated 8th February 2005 from non- salary grant of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 3. So far as order dated 12th January 2005 is concerned, the School Tribunal directed respondent No.1 Education Officer to see that petitioner got resumed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Management. As stated above, reinstatement order of the School Tribunal is already stayed by this Court and therefore, there is no question of implementation of this order. 4. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I do not find any breach, much less willful disobedience on the part of the respondents in non implementation of said orders dated 8th February 2005 and 12th January 2005. Petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. Sd/- [ R. V. MORE, J.]