cp202.09.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPE PETITION NO.202/2009 Shri Rajusingh Gulab Rathod ..versus... Laxmikant Diwakar Pande Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.A.J.Kadu, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.A.S.Parihar, AGP for Respondent Coram: R. K. Deshpande, J. Date : 22 nd March, 2010 This petition complains willful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2006, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati. The relevant portion of the order of which contempt is complained of is contained in Clause ( c) of the order, which is reproduced below. (c ) It is ordered that the appellant is entitled to grant of backwages from 19/06/2002 till the date of this judgment and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are ordered to prepare the salary bill and the payment or backwages be paid to the appellant on getting it approved by pay union as he is entitled to draw the said claim on the part of Respondent No. 3, within a period of 2 months from today. cp202.09.odt 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that after passing of this order, he made several representations to the management as well as to the Deputy Director for releasing the salary and backwages. According to him, the management has prepared its salary bills and forwarded it to the Education Department for sanction/approval. However, the Deputy Director of Education has except writing a letter dated 3rd February, 2007, directing the management to forward the bills, nothing has been done from 22.2.2006. The period of two months expired on 22.4.2006. The instant contempt petition appears to have been filed on 9.11.2009. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, deals with the limitation for actions for contempt. The same is reproduced below. 20. Limitation for actions for contempt. - No court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. In view of the aforesaid provision of Section 20, the period of limitation of one year prescribed has expired in April 2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cp202.09.odt 3 Deputy Director of Education has not challenged the order of the School Tribunal although he was party to the appeal before the School Tribunal. Be that as it may, the provisions of Section 20 of limitation bars the jurisdiction of this Court in taking cognizance of the contempt beyond the period of one year. The contempt petition has been filed on 9.11.2009, the same is, therefore, barred by limitation. The contempt is, therefore, dismissed. It is, however, made clear that dismissal of this petition shall not come in the way of petitioner to recover the amount, if any, by filing appropriate proceedings. J UDGE Rvjalit