C.P.No.333 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.333 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6937 OF 2009 Ashok Sudam Patel, Age 46 years, Occu.Service, R/o Chinode, Taluka Talode, District Nandurbar ..Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Sudamhai Shankar Patil, Age 65 years, Occu. Nil, President, Adarsha Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Chinode, Taluka Taloda, Dist.Nandurbar, r/o at post Chinode, Taluka Taloda, District Nandurbar 2. Shri Bharat Uddahav Patil, Age 37 years, Occu.Service, Head Master, Mahatma Gandhi Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Chinode, Taluka Taloda, District Nandurbar, R/o in front of Ankit Photo Studio, Labhalakshmi Computers, Taloda, District Nandurbar 3. Shri G.N.Patil, The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar 4. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondents Mr V.D.Sapkal, Advocate for petitioner Mr S.P.Brahme, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 Mr K.J.Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondents 3 and 4 CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 9th November 2011 C.P.No.333 of 2011 2 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr Sapkal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr Brahme, learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. In pursuance of the direction, a cheque of Rs.1,55,000/- favouring the petitioner Ashok Sudam Patel is tendered. The receipt is acknowledged by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner, by writ petition No.6937 of 2009 sought reliefs against the management and by order dated 16.6.2010, at the time of hearing the writ petition the Division Bench in paragraph 10 directed as under : “10. In the peculiar facts of the case we direct the State Government to take appropriate action under law against the management for non payment of salary to the petitioner either by deducting the non salary grants if available to the management or by initiating proceedings for de-recognition of the school. We direct the management too to deposit the entire amount towards salary of the petitioner from the date of reinstatement in this Court within six weeks and pay regular salary to the petitioner.” C.P.No.333 of 2011 3 5. The grievance of the petitioner is, the directions of the Court to pay the arrears of salary and up to date salary are not adhered to by the management-respondent. The responsibilities casted on the Education Officer to deduct the non salary grants, if available to the management or de-recognition of the school are not complied with. In order to substantiate claims and contentions, a chart of wages effective from 18.12.2006 up to July 2011 is furnished. The last figure contemplated appears to the tune of Rs.6,07,399/-. 6. During the pendency of the proceedings total amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- are released in favour of the petitioner, either by cheque or by crediting certain amount to his account. Additionally, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- also paid as costs owing to delayed payment. The fact remains, payment as directed by the Division Bench are not adhered to in letters and spirit. 7. Learned Counsel Mr Brahme for respondents 1 and 2 informs that the management is unable to make payment to the petitioner for want of correct calculation and he has prayed to get such calculation to be done by the Education Department, particularly by the Education Officer. This request of the respondent-management to get the calculation done through Education Officer, is difficult to digest, as the Education Officer himself is facing threat of contempt having not complied with the C.P.No.333 of 2011 4 directions of the Division Bench. That apart, it cannot be said that management is unaware of regular eligible salary of the petitioner, as admissible to the post concerned to which he was in service with it. The ground raised in paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-reply is in the fact situation is illusory and warrants flak. 8. During the course of submissions, I have asked Mr Brahme whether his clients are ready to pay additional amount of Rs.2 lacs up to 17th November 2011, to ensure that some via media can be pointed out. However, on instructions he informs that his clients are not in a position to make the payment in the time schedule or even by any extension. 9. The effect of the order of Division Bench need not be dilated. It must be given effect in the tune it was so indicated to the respondent- management. It is pertinent to note that in past respondent-management did not dispute correctness of the said order or any ambiguity in the said order as to the calculation. The record illustrates that the application seeking six months extension was moved by application No.11148 of 2010 in Writ Petition No.6937 of 2009. However, there was no order passed as the respondent-management was allowed to deposit Rs. 50,000/-, which has been complied with. In the fact situation, the conduct of the respondent-management invites for an action to be initiated under Contempt of Court’s Act. The conduct cannot be further be appreciated. C.P.No.333 of 2011 5 Majesty of the Court needs to be maintained. The petitioner for his valuable service rendered with the respondent-management must be paid. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not adhered to the directions given. Consequently, I hold the respondents 1 and 2 in contempt of orders of the Division Bench of this Court referred herein above. 10. The respondent No.1 is informed ill and bed ridden. However, respondent No.2 Head Master, Shri Bharat Uddhav Patil is present. Considering all the aspects, following order is passed : The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hold guilty of contempt in non compliance of orders in Writ Petition No. 6937 of 2010. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days (Thirty days) each and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rs.One thousand) each. If the respondent Nos.1 and 2 pay the balance amount and up to date salary up to 20th December 2011, the order of sentence referred herein above need not be executed. If the respondents 1 and 2 failed to comply the order up to 20th December 2011, they will surrender themselves to undergo the imprisonment as directed herein above. C.P.No.333 of 2011 6 11. Petition allowed to the extent as above as against respondents 1 and 2. Rule partly made absolute. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) (vvr/333.11CP)