1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Contempt Petition No.7 of 2010 (Rizwan Ahmedkhan Rahemankhan v. Shri Maqsood Ali Patel Rashid Patel, The President, Uruje Urdu Education Society (Kalamb), and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri P.P). Thakre, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri M.R. Johrapurkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri N. Adbe, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Shri A.G. Mujumdar, AGP for Respondent No.3. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 21 st September, 2010 1. This contempt petition complains about willful disobedience/breach of the judgment and order dated 4-9-2009 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No.35 of 2009. The complaint is that the directions contained in clauses 4 and 5 of the operative part of the order of the School Tribunal have not been complied with. Clauses 4 and 5 being relevant, are reproduced below : “4. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are further directed to record the absence of appellant from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement in service in the Service Book of appellant as a period of continuity in service. 2 5. The appellant is held entitled for grant of backwages and the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby ordered to give the appellant his backwages from 18.01.2007 till the date of reinstatement and other service benefits within 60 days from the date of this Judgment.” 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Shikshan Sevak on 11-11-2005 and he had completed the requisite period of Shikshan Sevak on 10-11-2008. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, from 11-11-2008 the petitioner is to be treated as Assistant Teacher till the date of his reinstatement in service on 8-10-2009. According to him, this benefit has not been given by the respondents, which amounts to breach of clause 4, reproduced above. He further submits that the petitioner has not been given back wages, as has been granted by the School Tribunal in clause 5 of the order, which is reproduced above. 3. In response to the aforesaid contentions, the stand of the respondents is that there has been a break in the service of the petitioner and hence the continuity, as claimed by the petitioner, cannot be granted. The respondents have treated the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak in terms of the directions issued by the School Tribunal. Similarly, the stand of the respondents in respect of the payment of back wages is that the Management has paid Rs.1,30,709/- towards back wages of the petitioner for the period from 18-1-2007 to 7-10-2009. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is not the amount of back wages due and payable to the petitioner. According to him, this amount ignores the continuity of the 3 petitioner in service with effect from 11-11-2005 – granted by the School Tribunal. 5. Whether the petitioner is entitled to continue in service as Shikshan Sevak from 11-11-2005 to 10-11-2008 and thereafter as Assistant Teacher from 11-11-2008 till the date of his reinstatement on 8-10-2009, is a disputed question of fact. Similarly, the amount of back wages payable to the petitioner is also a disputed question of fact. Whether the service rendered by the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak from 11-11-2005 and thereafter as Assistant Teacher from 11-11-2008, as claimed by the petitioner, is to be taken into consideration while calculating the amount of back wages, is required to be gone into. In view of this, it cannot be said that there is any willful disobedience/breach of the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal. The petitioner has got remedy for redressal of his grievances before the School Tribunal under Section 13 of the MEPS Act and hence no case is made out for proceeding with the present contempt petition. 6. In the result, there is no substance in the contempt petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 7. It is, however, made clear that the dismissal of the contempt petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner to prosecute his other remedies for redressal of his grievances. Judge pdl