1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 216/2007 IN CONEMPT PETITION NO. 122/2006 (Ku, Varsha Bhagwantrao Jadhao (Smt. Varsha Rameshrao Thakare) ........versus...... Smt. Ushatai Tanaji Wagh ................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................... Shri P.B.Patil, counsel for petitioner. Shri V.G.Wankhade, counsel for the respondent. ... CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 24th NOVEMBER, 2010. Oral Judgment This contempt petition complains about the willful disobedience/breach of the judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2007, passed by this Court in Contempt Petition No. 122/2006. The relevant portion of the order of which the contempt has been complained of is contained in the last part of the 2 order dated 3rd May, 2007, which is reproduced below. “So far as the third order namely order dated 25.01.2006 directing the respondent to allow the petitioner to join the duties and pay salary is concerned, Mr. Wankhede, the learned counsel for the respondents makes statement that the petitioner was allowed to join on 10.08.2006 and again terminated in pursuance of the final order dated 17.04.2007. He further states that so far as this period of eight months approximately is concerned since the petitioner has worked, the respondents are ready and willing to pay her salary for the above said period. He further makes statement that this salary will be paid within three months from today. In view of above, nothing survives in the present contempt petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.” 2] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an amount of Rs.76,339/- (i.e. Total arrears of Rs.1,09,574/- - (minus) Rs. 33,235/- paid by D.D in May 2007 = Rs.76,339/-) is still outstanding and it has not been paid. 3 3] Notice in this matter was issued on 17.10.2007. On 17.4.2008, this court passed an order as under; “S.O. to 2/5/2008 at the request of Shri Wankhede for taking instructions for paying the amount of salary to the petitioner as per order dated 3/5/2007.” On 29..7.2008, the following order was passed. “The learned counsel for the resondent sttesthat he would verify what is the amount due and endeavor to make at least part paymetn within two weeks and also states that as towhen the entire dues would be paid. S.O. to 12.08.2008” On 20th August, 2008, the order was passed as under; “Heard Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Wankhede, learned counsel for the respondent. Shri Wankhede, learned counsel has today handed over a cheque for Rs.15,325/- to the petitioner Kum. Varsha along with a xerox copy of the communication dated 18.08.2008 and also a chart as to how the total salary for the period from 09.08.2006 to 4 17.04.2007 has been worked out. Shri Patil, learned counsel states that the amount offered by cheque is insufficient and he wants to argue the matter to show that it is not in compliance with the orders of the Court. The petitioner Ku. Varsha is permitted to receive the cheque without prejudice to her contentions and rights. List the matter for further consideration on 10th September, 2008. Thereafter on 10th September, 2008, the following order was passed. “Shri P.B.Patil, Advocate, for the petitioner informs that Cheque for amount of Rs.15,235/- handed over on 20.8.2008 has been dishonoured. Shri Wankhede, Advocate, for the respondent, today, hands over a Demand Draft for the same amount to Shri Patil, Advocate, before the Court. There is no explanation furnished as to why cheque has been dishonoured, there is no reply to affidavit filed by the petitioner on 27.6.2008, though on 20.8.2008 time was given for the at purpose. The respondent is not present before the Court today. In the circumstances, absence of respondent is condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- by the respondent to the petitioner by 5 22.09.2008. The respondent shall remain present before this Court on 22.9.08 with reply affidavit or balance amount as the case may be. If the respondent does not remain present on the next date, the Court will be constrained to issue the appropriate process against her. S.O. to 22.09.2009” On 25.11.2008, the matter was admitted. On 8th April, 2010, the following order was passed. “Mr. Wankhede, learned counsel for the respondent submits that he is advising his client to make payment and hence seeks two weeks time so that the matter be sorted out. Time granted. Stand over to 22.04.2010.” On 22nd April, 2010, the following order was passed “1. This petition complaints about willful disobedience of order dated 03.05.2007 passed by this Court in Contempt Petition No. 122/2006. In this order, a statement was recorded, which was made on behalf of the respondent that so far as period of eight months from 10.08.2006 to 17.04.2007 is concerned since the petitioner and respondents are ready and willing to pay arrears of salary for the said period. A further statement is made that salary shall be paid within a period of three 6 months from the date of passing of the order. 2. In response to the instant contempt petition a stand is taken that the petitioner is treated as Shikshan Sevak and accordingly she has been paid salary at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month for the period from 09.08.2006 to 17.04.2007 amounting to Rs.33,235/-. 3. According to Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the School Tribunal has adjudicated the status of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher by judgment and order dated 19.07.2008, passed in Appeal No. 03/2003 by School Tribunal and reinstatement along with back wages have been granted. 4. Mr. Wankhede, the learned counsel for the respondent, submits that this judgment and order dated 19.07.2008 has been challenged before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 3069/2009, which has been admitted but there is no interim order passed staying effect and operation of the order. 5. From the order dated 03.05.2007 passed in Contempt Petition No. 122/2006, it does not seem to be the stand taken that the petitioner was not working as an Assistant Teacher. The stand that the petitioner was working as Shikshan Sevak prior to 17.04.2007 has been taken for the first time in reply filed 7 in response to the present contempt petition. Prima facie, the stand is not acceptable and the respondents are required to pay salary to the petitioner as Assistant Teacher for a period from 10.08.2006 to 17.04.2007 6. On 08.04.2010, statement was made by learned counsel for the respondent that he is advising his client to make payment, hence two weeks time was granted for seeking further instructions in the matter. This is how the matter is listed today. The respondent is not present in the Court in person and no instructions are given to the counsel for the respondent. 7. Mr. Wankhede, the learned counsel submits that the respondent shall remain present in this Court on 30.04.2010 and hence, place this matter for further orders on 30.04.2010” Thereafter on 30th April, 2010, the following order was passed. ‘The respondent is personally present in the Court, today. She seeks to file an affidavit bringing certain facts on record. I tis not possible for this Court to hear the contempt petition finally before the summer vacations as the same is assigned to this Court only during this week. Stand over to 15.06.2010 for final hearing.’ 8 The respondent is directed to remain present before the Court on the next date of hearing. Again on 14th July, 2010, the order was passed as under “Heard extensively. The order dated 22nd April 2010 recorded by the Brother Judge in unmistakable terms direct the respondent-management to make payment for the wages of the Assistant Teacher for the period from 10th August, 2006 to 17th April, 2007. Para 6 records, a statement was made by the learned counsel for the management on 8th April, 2010, that he would be advising his client to make payment and hence two weeks time was granted for seeking further instructions in the matter from 8th April, 2010. It was assured that he would remain present on the next date. The personal attendance of respondent is exempted for this date. With all said and done, further additional affidavit tendered vide No. 5238 of 2010 need no reconsideration of the controversy as the earlier orders coupled with the orders dated 22nd April, 2010 will amount to review by this Court. Respondent is duty bound to comply the orders in its letter and spirit without deviating the same adding spices for no reasons. In the result, respondent to ensure remitting the arrears to the 9 petitioner treating her as Assistant Teacher, which has not been controverted by the respondent. S.O. for payment to 27th July, 2010. Respondent no.1 shall remain present on that date. Respondent in addition shall pay costs of Rs.5000/- to the petitioner.” On 27th July, 2010 and 9th of September, 2010, the orders were passed as under; “Counsel for the respondent appears. He has filed power and informs by pursis that the respondent has filed an appeal before the Division Bench challenging the order passed. Such challenge is dated 14.7.2010. Respondent in person present. S.O. 8th September, 2010 Put up on 27/9/2010 by way of last chance at the request of learned counsel for the respondent.” Again on 30th September, 2010, the order was passed as under “At the request of Mr.Wankhede, learned counsel for the respondent, put up this matter on 13/10/2010, as a last chance. Shri Wankhede, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent sole is present in this Court. 10 Presence is noticed. The respondent is directed to remain present on 13/10/2010.” On 13th of October, 2010, the following order was passed. “Shri Desai, the learned counsel holding for Shri P.B.Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks an adjournment. Shri S.P.Kshirsagar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that the Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred and it is to be listed for admission before the Division Bench. He further submits that the respondent is personally present in this Court, as directed by this Court. The respondent shall remain present in this Court on the next date of hearing. Put up the matter on 24/11/2010. 4] In spite of aforesaid indulgence shown by this court, the amount of Rs.76,339/- is still outstanding. 5] While considering the matter on 22nd April, 2010, this Court had expressed that the stand taken by the respondent that the petitioner 11 was working as Shikshan Sevak prior to 17.4.2007 has been taken for the first time in the reply filed in response to the present contempt petition. It was observed that prima facie the stand is not acceptable and the respondent is required to pay the salary to the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher for the period from 10.8.2006 to 17.4.2007. 6] The only argument which has now been advanced before this Court is that, the L.P.A. is pending before this Court and on the last occasion, the matter was adjourned at the request of the appellant and the same is now listed on today. There is no further affidavit filed on record. There seems to be no repentance for the non compliance of various orders passed by this Court. The non- payment of an amount of Rs.76,336/- amounts to willful disobedience/breach of orders passed by this Court and also breach of undertaking given to this Court. The same amounts to contempt of court. The respondent is, therefore, held guilty of an act of contempt of Court. 12 7] In the affidavit dated 30th April, 2010, filed by the respondent, the stand is taken as under in para 11. “11. That, there is no willful disobedience of an order passed by this Hon’ble Court. The respondent is having a great regard and respect of this Hon’ble Court and always follow the order of this Hon’ble Court. If this Hon’ble Court comes to the conclusion that the respondent has disobeyed an order passed by this Hon’ble Court in that circumstances the respondent begs unconditional apology of this Hon’ble Court. Contents are explained in vernacular.” The apology tendered on the face of it is conditional. The same cannot, therefore, be accepted. 8] The petition complains about willful disobedience/breach of the order passed and the statement made in the Contempt Petition No. 122/2006 and the respondent has not perpetrated the act of contempt. The defence set up cannot be accepted and the respondent sole, who is present in person before this Court is liable to be punished for 13 the act of contempt of Court. 9] I have heard Shri Wankhade, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the question of sentence. The only stand is that there is no willful disobedience or breach and the L.P.A. Filed is pending and it is coming up for admission on 22nd November, 2010. In view of this, the respondent is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. No costs. The Registrar (Judicial) to forward the copy of this judgment and order to the the concerned Police Station, to act upon. 10] At this stage, Shri Wankhede, the learned counsel for the respondent prays for suspension of sentence for a period of two weeks. 11] In view of the fact that the respondent is a lady, one week time is granted, during which period the sentence shall stand suspended. Certified copy be expedited. JUDGE Rvjalit