1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.426 OF 2007 Rukhaiyya Gulamsaheb Dakhani .. Petitioner Versus Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad Education Society and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.A.A.Siddique for petitioner Mr.Karan Thorat h/f. G.S.Godbole for respondent Nos. 2, 7, 12 and 14 Mr.A.J.Patel, AGP for respondent No.1 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 27th April 2010. P.C.: 1] The contempt petition is filed alleging that the order of this Court dated 28th August 2000 has been violated wilfully and deliberately. 2] The order dated 28th August 2000 is on a petition by respondent No.1 management. That order directs that the petitioner before me shall be reinstated as Assistant Teacher forthwith. 3] The grievance in the contempt petition is that the petitioner was so reinstated and allowed to work. However, when the petitioner was 2 advised some treatment for her deteriorating health and she was away from the work from 27th July 2005 to 7th September 2007, Thereafter, when she went to resume the duty, she was not permitted to joint duty. It is contempt of this Court’s order. 4] The petition nowhere states that the petitioner has not been reinstated in service. She has been reinstated and was working as an Assistant Teacher. Post the order of this Court, there was development with regard to her illness and she allegedly took rest for the abovementioned period. When after the leave period, she came to resume duties the school management did not allow her to work. These are distinct instances and should not be made subject matter of a contempt petition. It is not the case of the petitioner that the order of this Court has been breached inasmuch as she was not reinstated. For all these reasons and on account of the statements made in paras 9 and 10 of the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.1, the contempt petition is misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)