1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Contempt Petition No.181 of 2005 [Ku. Manda d/o Shriram Lade (Maiden name) v. Mr. Suryakant Dongre, President, S.C.S. Girls Education Society, and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri A.D. Vyawahare, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri M.P. Lala, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 11 th January, 2011 1. This contempt petition complains about willful disobedience/breach of the judgment and order dated 4-2-2005 passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur, in Appeal No.STN/98/1997. The operative part of the order passed by the School Tribunal of which the contempt is complained of, is reproduced below : “1) Appeal is allowed under Section 11(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. 2) The oral termination of appellant’s services from 11-11-1997 by the Headmaster is hereby set aside wholly. 2 3) The respondent nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to reinstate the appellant on the post of Asstt. Teacher with continuity of service. 4) The respondent nos.1 and 2-management shall pay Rs.3,000/- to the appellant towards costs of this appeal. 5) The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur shall reconsider the sanctioned strength of teachers from the academic year 1997-1998 on the basis of strength of students as per criteria laid down by the Government. 6) The Education Officer (Primary) shall release the grant for the payment of salary of appellant for a period of probation, even thereafter, if she satisfactorily completed her probation period. 7) The above directions shall be communicated to the parties in writing, for compliance, within 30 days. 8) If the management fails to reinstate the appellant within given time, then the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur shall deduct the amount of her salary from the grants due and payable, or that may become due and payable in future, to the management, for being paid directly to the appellant. 9) Besides this, if the management fails to comply the above directions within given time, the appellant is at 3 liberty to file criminal complaint before the appropriate Criminal Court against the office bearers of the management under Section 13 of the M.E.P.S. Act.” Neither the Management nor the employee preferred any petition challenging the aforesaid order passed by the School Tribunal. However, the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, preferred Writ Petition No.999 of 2006 before this Court. The employee and the Management were party respondent Nos.1 and 2 & 3 respectively. The said writ petition has been decided by this Court by its judgment dated 28-9-2010. Paras 3, 4 and 5 of the said judgment, which are relevant, are reproduced below : “3. The order dated 16-12-2005 issued by the petitioner has not been challenged either by the Management or by the respondent-teacher. In view of the rejection of the approval to the appointment of the respondent-teacher, the question of clause (6) of the order of the School Tribunal, reproduced above, operating, does not arise. The Education Officer is not liable to release the grant for payment of salary of the respondent-teacher. 4. Shri Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, further submits that by an order dated 27-1- 2010, which is placed on record and marked “X” for identification, the petitioner has granted approval to the appointment of respondent No.1 as Assistant Teacher on probation with effect from 1-7-2007 and accordingly the salary is also being paid with effect from 1-7-2007. 4 5. In view of the fact that the order of the School Tribunal has already been complied with, nothing survives in the present petition and the same is, therefore, disposed of as such. No order as to costs.” 2. Shri Vyawahare, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has urged that in terms of clause 4 of the order passed by the School Tribunal, which is reproduced below, an amount of Rs.3,000/- has not been paid by the Management to the petitioner. Hence, there is a willful disobedience/breach of the said part of the order. 3. Shri Lala, the learned counsel appearing for the Management, makes a statement that an amount of Rs.3,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. 4. The statement is accepted as an undertaking to this Court and no proceeding is required to be carried out further for that purpose. 5. Shri Vyawahare, the learned counsel, has further urged that the School Tribunal has set aside the order of termination dated 11-11-1997 passed by the Management and directed the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, to release the grant for the payment of salary of the petitioner for a period of probation and even thereafter if the petitioner has satisfactorily completed the period of probation. On the basis of this order of the School Tribunal, he submits that the petitioner is entitled to the back wages from the date of termination, i.e. 5 11-11-1997, till the date of reinstatement, i.e. 30-3-2005. He further submits that the petitioner has not been paid the arrears of salary for the period from 30-3-2005 to 30-6-2007. He does not dispute that with effect from 1-7-2007, the petitioner is receiving her regular salary. 6. The question is, therefore, whether the Management is required to pay an amount of back wages to the petitioner for the period from 11-11-1997, i.e. the date of termination, or from 4-2- 2005, i.e. the date of decision of the School Tribunal, to 30-6- 2007, on which date the petitioner has been reinstated in service. 7. This Court, by the judgment and order dated 28-9-2010, has held that the Education Officer is not liable to release the grant for the payment of salary of the teacher in terms of clause 6 of the order passed by the School Tribunal. Shri Vyawahare, the learned counsel, could not point out any specific direction either given by the School Tribunal or by this Court to the Management to pay back wages to the petitioner from the date of termination, i.e. 11-11-1997 to the date of reinstatement, i.e. 30-3-2005. He submits that such term has to be presumed when this Court has excluded the Education Officer from payment of back wages. According to him, once the Education Officer is excluded from payment of back wages, the Management is bound to make the payment of back wages to the petitioner. The contention cannot be accepted, for the reason that there is no specific direction either given by the School Tribunal or by this Court to the Management to make the payment of back wages to the petitioner from 11-11-1997 to 30-3-2005. Merely because this Court has excluded the Education Officer, by its judgment and order dated 28-9-2010, that by itself will not shift the liability of 6 back wages upon the Management. Similarly, Shri Vyawahare, the learned counsel, could not point out any direction to the Management to pay arrears of salary of the petitioner from 30-3- 2005 to 30-6-2007. In view of this, there is no disobedience or breach muchless of a willful nature of the order either passed by the School Tribunal or by this Court, established by the petitioner. 8. Thus, there is no substance in this contempt petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 9. It is, however, made clear that the dismissal of this petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner to prosecute her claim for arrears of salary, if it is permissible in accordance with law. 10. In view of the dismissal of the contempt petition, nothing survives in Civil Application No.935 of 2006 and the same stands disposed of as such. Judge pdl