1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.348 OF 2008 Smt.Prabhaben V. Mistry .. Petitioner Versus Kasturba Mahila Mandal & Anr.. .. Respondents Mr.M.P.Vashi for petitioner Mr.A.I.Patel, AGP for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 Mr.Suresh Kumar J. Panicker for respondent Nos. 1 nd 2. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 27th April 2010. P.C.: 1] This contempt petition alleges civil contempt. The allegations are that the respondents have willfully and deliberately violated the order dated 10th January 1997 passed by the School Tribunal and confirmed by this Court on 5th June 2007. 2] My attention is invited to the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer and specifically the directions therein. 3] Further, Mr.Vashi invites my attention to the order dated 5th June 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 4] He submits that the Single Judge has dismissed Management’s 2 petition. 5] He further submits that on 4th December 2008 the learned Single Judge passed an order on this petition which reads thus:- “1. I am not inclined in the facts of this case to relegate the petitioner to adopt execution proceedings in respect of the order dated 10.1.1997 passed by the School Tribunal, Mumbai Region. The management is given an opportunity of calculating the amounts due to the petitioner and paying the same on or before 31.3.2009. 2. Needless to add that the management is always at liberty to seek refund of the amount from the Education Department. This is an aspect between the Education Department and the management. The management shall also forward the papers in respect of the petitioner to the Education Department to enable them to process the petitioner’s pension entitlement within eight weeks from today. S.O to 6.4.2009.” 6] In such circumstances, it is the submission of Mr.Vashi that both respondents ought to be proceeded against for civil contempt and in any event appropriate orders be passed with regard to the petitioner’s pensionary entitlement and difference in salary in terms of clause (c) of the order passed by the Tribunal on 10th January 1997. 3 7] This matter was argued on two occasions and an additional affidavit is filed by the Education Inspector wherein he has stated that after the disposal of the petition by the learned Single Judge of this Court, letters have been addressed to the school management to submit pension papers. The management did not give any response and ultimately submitted pension papers on 21st August 2008. Thereafter, the pension papers were forwarded for finalisation of pensionary benefits to the office of Accountant General (AG) on 10th September 2008. The office of AG was reminded from time to time. The said office finalised the pensionary benefits and informed the Education Inspector on 21st October 2008. Thus, according to Mr.Patel, learned AGP, as per this additional affidavit and annexures thereto, the pension due and payable to the petitioner has been computed and all benefits in terms thereof have been released. Even the benefit of fifth pay commission’s recommendations has been given to the incumbent. 8] Thus, there is no willful and deliberate disobedience but the affidavit would demonstrate that there is no delay and latches either. Prompt steps have been taken by following up the matter with the management. 9] Mr.Vashi on receipt of copy of this additional affidavit confirms the statement therein and fairly states that the petitioner has been receiving pensionary benefits and the pension has been duly fixed on the basis of the statements made on oath. For all these reasons the contempt petition is not pursued and stands disposed of as far as Education Inspector is 4 concerned. 10] Once the Dy.Director, Education Inspector and the State have made their stand clear, then, it is only respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the management need to be heard on the grievance that clause (c) of the order of Tribunal dated 10th January 1997 has not been implemented. 11] Mr.Panicker appearing for management states that although a statement was made before this Court on 4th December 2008 and repeatedly the management has been informed about the urgency, the calculations of the amounts due to the petitioner in terms of the aforementioned direction is not done and consequently even the amount remained to be paid. Mr.Panicker assures the Court that the management has been appraised of the urgency and expediency in implementing court’s order and particularly the directions contained in the order dated 4th December 2008. He submits that the representative of the management was present but since the management is represented by senior citizens and women office bearers, a lenient view be taken and a last chance be afforded to the management to compute the amount and make payment. 12] According to Mr.Vashi a sum of Rs.2 lakhs is due and payable by the management to the petitioner. This amount has to be paid by the management from its own funds and was to be paid on or before 31st March 2009. 5 13] To my mind, the order of 4th December 2008 is clear. The direction there is to calculate and pay the amount and not drive the petitioner to adopt execution proceedings. In such circumstances, the management ought to have acted in right earnest and implemented Court’s order. The management has failed to do so and even the reasons for the same are not forthcoming. However, in the light of the statements made by Mr.Panicker, one last chance is given to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the directions contained in the order of the School Tribunal and this Court dated 4th December 2008. Mr.Panicker has stated that the management will calculate and release the payment on or before 15th June 2010. The statement of Mr.Panicker is accepted. In the light of this statement. Contempt petition is disposed of with direction that if the amounts are not paid as stated, it would be open for the petitioner to adopt such proceedings as are permissible in law including taking action against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for civil contempt. 14] The contempt petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms. The explanation in the additional affidavit of Education Inspector is accepted and proceedings are closed against respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)