1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 218/2006 (Aniruddha Mansaram Kore VERSUS S.B. Choudhari, Head Master & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri B.M. Kharkate, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K. Pardhy, counsel for the R-1 & 2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 24, 2009. By this contempt petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondents for non- compliance of the order passed by the High Court on 30.01.2006 on Civil Application No.6633/2005 in Writ Petition No.2083/2003. By the order dated 30.01.2006, the Court directed the respondents/ management to pay the arrears of salary of the petitioner on or before 31.03.2006. The Court further directed that the salary for the month of March be paid on or before 10.04.2006. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the said directions, the respondents had not paid the salary to the petitioner. 2 It is brought to the notice of this Court that the order passed by the High Court on 30.01.2006 was vacated by an order dated 23.10.2008. While the Writ Petition No.2083/2003 was decided by the judgment dated 05.12.2008, the Court categorically made it clear that the petitioner shall not claim any benefit of salary for the period prior to 01.01.2009 against any of the respondents to the petition and the management shall also not resort for any recoveries against the petitioner for the past period. In view of the subsequent orders passed by the High Court on 23.10.2008 and 05.12.2008, it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the salary for the period prior to 01.01.2009. It is, therefore, necessary to drop the contempt proceedings against the respondents in view of the subsequent developments. The contempt proceedings against the respondents are hereby dropped. The notice dated 20.10.2006 stands discharged. 3 The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE APTE