0204cp76.07.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 76 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 349 OF 1996 (D) Atul Vishnupant Deshpande - Petitioner -: Versus :- Rajendra Deshmukh, Chief Officer,Respondents Municipal Council & another - Respondents .......................................................................................................................................................... Shri S. P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri Anoop Parihar, Advocate for the respondents. ................................................................................................................................. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 02nd April, 2009 P. C. : 1. By this contempt petition the petitioner had sought action against the respondents for willful non compliance of the order passed by this Court on 10/01/2006 in writ petition No. 349 of 1996 under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act. It appears that by the order dated 10/01/2006 of which the contempt is alleged, the respondents were directed to pay to the petitioner the salary to which he was entitled for the period during which he had worked as a Lecturer in the Junior college of the Municipal Council. It was further observed in the order that the petitioner should be paid the salary which was payable to an ad 0204cp76.07.sxw 2 hoc teacher by the Municipal Council. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of specific direction issued by the order dated 10/01/2006, the petitioner was not paid the salary, by the respondents. 2. It is brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of this petition an application was filed by the respondents before this Court for review of the order passed by the High Court on 10/01/2006 in writ petition No. 349 of 1996. In view of the order dated 13/3/2009 in C. A. No. 94 of 2009, the order passed by this Court on 10/01/2006 was reviewed and this Court observed that for the words 'ad hoc teacher' in the order dated 10/01/2006 the words 'to the petitioner strictly in conformity with the approval order dated 14/12/1996' should be substituted. Thus, it appears that by review of the order dated 10/01/2006, this Court directed that the petitioner should not be paid the salary of an ad hoc teacher but should be paid the salary strictly in conformity with the approval order dated 14/12/1996. It is brought to the notice of this Court that by the approval order dated 14/12/1996, the appointment of the petitioner was approved as a Part time Lecturer. Even before the order dated 10/01/2006 was reviewed, the respondents had paid an amount of Rs. 19,322/- to the petitioner towards salary payable to the petitioner for the post of Part time Lecturer. It is stated in the pursis dated 28/7/2008 (stamp No. 8282 of 2008) that the amount 0204cp76.07.sxw 3 was paid towards the salary, to the petitioner by a demand draft. 3. In view of the order dated 10/01/2006 of which contempt is alleged and in view of the fact that the salary payable to a Part time Lecturer is already paid to the petitioner by demand draft dated 21/7/2008, it is necessary to drop the contempt proceedings against the respondents. 4. In the result, the contempt proceedings against the respondents are hereby dropped. The notice issued to the respondents on 17/7/2007 stands discharged. Contempt petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. JUDGE wwl