1 C.P. No. 35 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 35 OF 2011 in WRIT PETITION NO. 1662 OF 2009 Rajeev @ Raju Bhagwanta Sonwane, Age 34 yers, Occu. Service (under suspension) R/o Khandala, Tq. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. Petitioner V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Divisional Dy. Director of Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. Subhash S/o Ramrao Shinde, Age 55 years, Occu. Service as Education Officer (Secondary), zilla Parishad, Jalna. 4. Santoshraoji Waluba Daspute, Age 60 years, Occu. President of Bhokardan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Bhokardan, Tq. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna, R/o Sevadadan, Jafrabad Road, Bhokardan, Tq. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. 5. Smt. Surekha Ghanshyam Jawale, Age 50 years, Occu. Service as Head Mistress, C/o Priyadarshani Indira Gandhi, 2 C.P. No. 35 of 2011 Kanya Vidyala, Bhokardan, Tq. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. Respondents Mr. V.G. Salgare, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S.D. Kaldage, AGP for respondent /State Mr. R.I. Wakde, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 & 5 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 11th February, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. As per the directions issued by this Court, vide order dated 5th February, 2010, in Writ Petition No. 1662 of 2009, the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalna, it seems, made enquiry into the facts and issues involved between the parties and held that the petitioner is not entitled to subsistence allowance for the relevant period, because he did not attend the head office during the relevant period. 2. Shri Salgare, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the compliance of the order is not proper, because, while conducting enquiry, the Education Officer did not hear the petitioner at all. He thereby suggested that there was scope for the petitioner to enlighten the Education Officer about his case vis-a- vis the case of the Management. He said, since this was not done, the compliance was not complete. He even suggested that the petition is therefore to continue. I am afraid, this submission is not pertinent now. The Education Officer (Sec.) Zilla Parishad, Jalna, as per the directions of this Court, conducted the enquiry and arrived at a conclusion. No where in the directions the Court suggested to the Education Officer (Sec.) Zilla Parishad, Jalna that he should give notice of his enquiry to the petitioner and to hear on facts etc. In my 3 C.P. No. 35 of 2011 considered opinion, the action taken by the Education Officer is due compliance of the order passed. I am therefore, not inclined to continue the Contempt Petition. It stands dismissed. The presence of Shri Subhash Ramrao Shinde, Education Officer (Sec.), Zilla Parishad, Jalna is noted and he is permitted to leave the Court. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SDM*/CP35.11/110211.