{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.275 OF 2008 Gulab Ahmed s/o Mahebub Qureshi PETITIONER VERSUS Mohd.Abdul Rashid s/o Mohd Abdul Razzak and others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. M.M.Joshi, Advocate for petitioner Mr.A.B.Tele, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. P.R.Katneshwarkar, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr.B.A.Shinde, Advocate for respondent No.3 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 19 th March 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present contempt petition, the petitioner has prayed to take action against the respondents under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, as the respondents have violated the interim order passed by this Court on 24.04.2007 in Second Appeal No.824/2006. 2. Before considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to consider few facts, which are necessary to appreciate the case. {2} 3. It is not disputed that the present respondents No.1 and 2 are the President and Secretary of Parbhani Education Society. It appears that on the complaint of one Anwar Ali Khan, reporter of local newspaper and one advocate in respect of certain alleged misdeeds on the part of the respondents No.1 and 2, the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad had submitted a report to the Joint Charity Commissioner. Pursuant to the report submitted by Deputy Charity Commissioner, the Joint Charity Commissioner initiated suo motu proceedings u/s 41(D) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, against respondents No.1 and 2 and vide order dated 16.11.2005, suspended them from the trusteeship of the Parbhani Education Society. It appears that the said suspension order was challenged by the respondents No.1 and 2 before the Principal District Judge, Parbhani by preferring Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.51/2005. It further appears that the said appeal was dismissed on merits vide judgment and order dated 11.10.2006. It also appears that the order passed in the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.51/2005 is challenged by the respondents by filing Second Appeal No.824/2006. It also appears that on 24.04.2007, interim order came to be passed. The last part of the said order reads thus- “In the meanwhile, the impugned order of suspension is stayed but the suspended appellants will not be authorized to deal with any financial transaction and cannot take policy decision like holding of elections and appointment of new trustees etc.” The present contempt petition is filed by the petitioner {3} alleging 10 actions of the respondents as contemptuous and are in violation of the interim orders dated 24.04.2007. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner followed by learned counsel for respective respondents. Perused the petition so also the annexures. On careful perusal of the contempt petition, it appears that in para No.10 (A) to (J), the petitioner has alleged 10 acts, which according to him are contemptuous at the hands of the respondents and for which action is prayed against the respondents as per the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. 5. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, perused the 10 alleged acts, as projected in the contempt petition. So far as act at serial No.1 is concerned, the same relates to passing of resolution on 20.08.2007 and it is alleged that the respondents No.1 and 2 are the signatories to the said resolution. As per the said resolution, services of employees who were on probation, are continued after their completion of probationary period satisfactorily. It is to be noted that the employees of the private schools are governed by the MEPS Act and Rules. Initially, these employees were appointed on probation and after their completion of the probation satisfactorily, they need to be continued in service. The said resolution is not only signed by respondents No.1 and 2, but also by other members of the trust. Accordingly, passing the said resolution is an administrative act and has to be taken as per the provisions of MEPS Act and Rules, {4} as has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondents. The act of respondents of passing the resolution thereby confirming the services of the employees, which is an administrative act, cannot be termed as policy decision and hence would not amount to a contemptuous action and therefore, would not cover as the act of contempt by respondents No.1 and 2. 6. The alleged contemptuous act at serial No.2 is in respect of release of annual increments of the employees. So also the alleged contemptuous acts at serial No.3, 9 and 10 are in respect of sanction of annual increments to the employees working in the said education institution. Release of annual increments of the employees is right of the employee and it is the consequence of service condition. Release of annual increment cannot be termed as a policy decision or interference in the financial transaction of the educational institution. On the contrary, to stop annual increments would amount to a policy decision. In the premise, the acts at serial No.2, 3, 9 and 10, alleged by the petitioner as contemptuous, in fact cannot be termed as contemptuous act. 7. Vide act at serial No.4, contempt is claimed against respondent No.3, who has allowed to release grant for payment towards municipal tax. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, as there was clog over the powers to be exercised by respondents No.1 and 2, the amount in the sum of Rs.1 lac was withdrawn, with a bold allegation, without supporting any {5} documents, that the respondent No.3 has permitted to withdraw amount in the sum of Rs.1 lac from the non salary grant of the institution though respondent No.3 was aware of the orders passed by this Court and hence the said action of the respondent No.3 amounts to contempt of court. This Court is not in agreement with the submissions, for the simple reason that on perusal of the application, which was moved by the Head Master of the school it is clear that he has explained that as certain orders are passed by this Court prohibiting the Secretary to apply to withdraw the amount, he has moved application for withdrawal of the amount for payment of municipal taxes, on which the grants were sanctioned by respondent No.3 subject to the decision of the pending litigation. The amount withdrawn is for satisfaction of contingency, otherwise, the school might have faced consequence of non payment of statutory taxes. Thus, the said act would not amount to contempt of court on the contrary the same is the emergent act and was to be complied with by respondent No.3. 8. So far as acts at serial No.5 and 6 are concerned, the same are in respect of intimation by respondents No.1 and 2 to the Head Masters working under the institution to submit confidential reports of employees working under them. These reports requires to be called and submitted under the provisions of MEPS Rules, which would certainly not amount any policy decision. At the same time, item No.8 is in respect of writing of review report by respondent No.1. It appears that the respondent No.1 has only {6} written the review report on the confidential report, however, no orders are passed in respect of reversion or promotion of the concerned employee. Writing of review on the confidential report is an administrative act and not a policy decision. However, on the basis of review to take action of reversion or promotion of the concerned would definitely amount to policy decision. It is admitted that neither the concerned employees are reverted nor promoted and hence the said action would not come within the ambit of contempt of court. 9. Lastly item no.7 is in respect of granting of senior pay scale to certain employees. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 drawn my attention to the opening line of page No.36. It indicates that after completion of 12 years of service, the employee is entitled for certain senior pay scale, as per Government Resolution. To deny that scale would amount to policy decision, but to grant senior pay scale, in terms of Government Resolution would not amount to policy decision and in tern would not amount to contempt of court. 10. Thus, from the above discussion and considering the provisions of relevant laws and rules, all the acts / actions alleged as contempt by the petitioner, can be termed as administrative acts and would not amount to policy decision amounting to financial transactions or conducting of elections or appointment of new trustees, which is prohibited by the interim orders passed in {7} Second Appeal No.82/2006. 11. As the petitioner failed to establish that the acts, projected in para 10 (A) to (J), amount to contempt and the same are in violation of the interim order, the petition requires to be dismissed. Accordingly, the contempt petition, which is sans merits, stands dismissed with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/cp275-08