1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 170 OF 2008 In WRIT PETITION NO. 3602 OF 2007 Shaikh Rauf s/o. Abdul Rahman, R/o. J-210, Krushna Enclave, Ahmednagar. ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & another ....Respondents. Shri. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. K.S.Patil, AGP for respondents. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 21st November, 2009 ORAL ORDER : 1. This petition for contempt complains about disobedience of the judgment and order dated 4.10.2007, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3602/2007. The operative part of the said judgment and order is reproduced below :- "In view of this position, we hereby direct that the petitioner shall join his posting in the office of the Commissioner of Police, Brahanmumbai on 15.10.2007. The Commissioner of Police/respondent 2 no. 2 - Director General of Police thereafter shall issue orders of relieving the petitioner within two days of his joining his posting at Mumbai and thereafter the order, which is in vogue about transfer of the petitioner to Aurangabad, shall take effect on his such relieving by respondent no. 2 from Mumbai. The entire exercise is to be completed scrupulously. The petitioner shall cooperate with the respondents officers in this regard. On arrival at Aurangabad, the Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad (Rural) shall give suitable posting to the petitioner as per the relevant Rules and Regulations and on its own merits. It is clarified that the salary and the consequent payment of the petitioner payable during all this process since April, 2006 shall be regularized within a period of six weeks from his taking over charge at Aurangabad." 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he joined his posting in the office of Commissioner of Police, Bruhanmumbai on 15.10.2007 and thereafter, by an order dated 24.3.2008 (page 52), the respondent sought to regularize the period of service of the petitioner from 17.4.2006 to 14.10.2007. The Only aspect, in respect of which this contempt petition relates, is regarding treating the period of 454 days from 18.7.2006 to 14.10.2007, as an extraordinary leave by the D.C.P. (Operations), Mumbai. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this period should have been treated as a compulsory waiting period, in view of the fact that the petitioner was not relieved from his post and was not given the posting order. 3. The respondent No. 2 - the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarter), Aurangabad has filed an affidavit dated 17th of July 2008 3 in response to the contempt petition. In para 13, it has been stated as under :- "Rest 454 days were treated as Extraordinary leave by the DCP (Operations), Mumbai, as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1981. There is a procedure under the rules to regularize the sick/absence periods and the said orders have been issued strictly in consonance of the rules and there has been absolutely no mala fide intention or contempt in the said order. I most respectfully say and submit that this deponent has deposited Rs. 37,807/- vide cheque No. 948559 dt. 7.7.2008 towards payment of earned & commuted leave in the name of the petitioner on his account. This amount is credited on 11/7/2008 on personal account of petitioner." Thus, according to the respondents, the order has been fully complied with. The payment has been made, which is credited to the personal account of the petitioner. 4. The question urged by the petitioner is, whether the period from 18.7.2006 to 14.10.2007, which is of 454 days, should have been treated as an extraordinary leave and it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if this period is treated as an extraordinary leave, then under the Rules, the petitioner is not entitled to payment of salary for this period. He, therefore, submits that if this period is treated as compulsory waiting period, he will get the salary for this period. In my view, the directions issued by this Court, which are reproduced above, in the judgment and order dated 4.10.2007, merely requires the respondents to regularize the period of his absence within a period of six 4 weeks. There is no direction by this Court to treat the period from 18.7.2006 to 14.10.2007 as a compulsory waiting period. Hence, it cannot be said that the action of the respondents is in breach or violation of the order passed by this Court. 5. In para 14 of the affidavit of the respondent, it is further stated that if the petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 24.3.2008, then he is at liberty to make representation in respect of the same, which will be sent to the same authority for due consideration and for taking decision as per the existing rules and regulations. The petitioner submits that he has forwarded such representation to the concern authorities, however, the same is awaiting the decision. The question, whether the period from 18.7.2006 to 14.10.2007 should be treated as compulsory waiting period, is thus required to be adjudicated by the concern authority and the same cannot be the subject matter of the contempt petition. If the decision is wrong, then the petitioner has forum open to challenge it. In view of above, there is no substance in the present contempt petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/cp170.08