1 cp373.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 373 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 175 OF 2007 Gajanan s/o Laxman Kulkarni, Age: Major, Occ: Service, R/o. 469, Ganesh Chowk, HUDCO Colony, Savedi Road, Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, and others. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. P.P. Shahane, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent No.1. Mr.Rajendra Deshmukh,Advocate for respondent No.2. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 26TH JULY, 2011 PER COURT : This contempt petition alleges disobedience of the order dated 16-01-2007 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 175 of 2007. By the said order, 2 cp373.10 learned Single Judge of this Court directed the respondents herein to deposit Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand) in the Labour Court and also on such deposit being made, Labour Court to invest the said amount in a fixed deposit. So far that part of the order is concerned, there is no dispute. 2. It is the contention of the Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the employer i.e. respondent herein was directed to allow the petitioner to join the service and accordingly, the petitioner herein joined service of the respondent on 22-01-2007 and Salary amount is paid to the petitioner till 01-05-2010. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has worked from 01-05-2010 onwards. However, this position is disputed by learned Counsel for respondent No.2. Though the petitioner is working from May 2010, no salary is paid, therefore, according to learned Counsel for the petitioner, it amounts to contempt and breach of the direction 3 cp373.10 given by learned Single Judge. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 invited my attention to the affidavit in reply and additional affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.2 and relying on the averments made therein, would submit that, the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 01-05-2010. He has completed 60 years and from 01-05-2010 he is not in the employment of the respondent and therefore, there is no question of any payment towards salary from 01-05-2010. Learned Counsel invited my attention to the order passed by learned Single Judge on 10-06-2011 in Civil Application No. 5908 of 2011. The said application was filed for modification of the order of which disobedience has been alleged in this contempt petition. However, this Court has clarified in the said order that the employer was not restrained from taking any further steps as are permissible in law and therefore, the said application was disposed of. According to learned 4 cp373.10 Counsel for respondent No.2, steps taken by the respondent - employer are as permissible in law and therefore, this contempt petition is devoid of any merits and same may be dismissed. 4. Upon perusal of the order of which disobedience has been alleged in this contempt petition, it is true that this Court directed the respondent - employee to allow the petitioner to join the service and accordingly, on 22-01-2007 the petitioner joined the service. It is also not in dispute that till 01-05-2010 the salary is paid to the petitioner. As rightly contended by Counsel for respondent No.2 that, the petitioner has completed 60 years on 01-05-2010 and he has attained the age of superannuation and therefore, there is no question of continuing the service any further or payment of any salary from 01-05-2010. 5. While disposing of Civil Application No. 5908 of 2011 in Writ Petition No. 175 of 2007 on 10-06-2011, it is clarified by this Court that the 5 cp373.10 respondent - employer would have taken steps as are permissible in law and accordingly, said steps have been taken. Therefore, in my opinion, viewed from any angle, there is no any disobedience much less willful disobedience of the order of which disobedience has been alleged in this contempt petition. Hence the Contempt Petition is disposed of. Notice stands discharged. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/JUL11