1 CP NO.271 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 271 OF 2011 Vishal s/o Manchakrao Sathe, Age: 30 years, Occu. Service, r/o. "Vishal", Anand Nagar, Paralivaijnath, Tq.Parali Vaijnath, District:Beed. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Bhaskar Deogude, Age: Major, Occu. Service as Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Beed. 2. Laxman s/o Shankarrao Deshmukh, Age: Major, Occu. President, Saraswati Education Society, R/o Saraswati Education Society, Subhash Chowk, Parali Vaijnath, Tq.Parali (V) District - Beed. 3. Suwarna w/o Rahul Fulkar, Age: Major, Occu. Secretary, Saraswati Education Society, R/o Saraswati Education Society, Subhash Chowk, Parali Vaijnath, Tq.Parali (V) District - Beed. 4. Mukund s/o Dhondiba Maind, Age: Major, Occu. Head Master, Shri Saraswati Vidyalaya, r/o. Saraswati Education Society, Subhash Chowk, Parali Vaijnath, Tq.Parali (V), District - Beed. ...RESPONDENTS ... 2 CP NO.271 of 2011 Advocate for Petitioners : Party in person ( Vishal s/o Manchakrao Sathe) Advocate for Respondent No.1: Mr.N.L.Jadhav. Advocate for Respondent nos. 2 to 4 : Mr.Sachin Deshmukh. Respondent nos. 2 and 4 served. ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. Dated: December 02, 2011 ... PER COURT :- 1. Mr. M.V.Ghatge, learned Counsel for the petitioner is discharged, as the brief is taken over by the party in person - petitioner. 2. Heard finally. 3. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the oral termination dated 15.6.2007 recorded by the Headmaster of Shri Saraswati Vidyalaya and, consequently, initiated proceedings being Appeal No. 1/2010. This Court is not adverting to earlier features and facts between the parties, which has a history of tinkered litigation, as the point involved would be sufficiently answered if the situation that creeps in Appeal No.1/2010, and judgment dated 1st April, 2011 therein, is pondered to. 4. The learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad, by his order dated 1st April, 2011, found entitlement of the petitioner as a Shikshan Sevak, for a period of 17 months, in the light of settled legal position and in the light of 3 CP NO.271 of 2011 Section 5(2)(a) of M.E.P.S.Act. The petitioner submits, inspite he being equipped with the order dated 5th April, 2011, he is not given appointment, or allowed to resume the duties, or to perform his obligation thereby, he is kept aside, and wages are also not paid. 5. The Education Officer, respondent No.1 Bhaskar Deogude, indeed, does not dispute the situation as emerged in the judgment of Appeal No. 1/2010. He has tendered unconditional apologies for the events that have taken place in the matter. He informs, on 3rd March, 2011, the then Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Mr.S.K.Pawar, has issued a letter directing Headmaster of the School to implement the subject order. He also informs that the Department desired to take action against respondent nos. 2 to 4 by virtue of its communication, however, no action to implement the order, effectively, could be taken. 6. Mr.Deshmukh, learned Counsel representing respondent nos. 2 and 3 submits that being aggrieved by order in Appeal No.1/2010, a review petition is moved before the same authority, which would be taken for hearing in due course, the petitioner has alternate remedies, which he is at liberty to exhaust, this Court should not entertain his petition, being devoid of merits. 7. The petitioner has highlighted his plight by flashing several documents, now need not be traversed 4 CP NO.271 of 2011 to. The fact remains, inspite of willingness and endeavour on the part of the petitioner, even informing so by the Education Officer, at least in March 2011, pursuant to earlier directions, no concrete steps are taken by the management to act upon the orders under appeal in its letter and spirit. There is, apparently, no justification on the part of the management, as there is no impediment from any Court not to act upon the orders in Appeal No.1/2010. The conduct of management speaks for itself, to demonstrate its strength, to flout even the directions of Education Officer who, they feel, to be a timid entity and a dwarf against their power, which they pretend to possess. Such situation cannot, further, be encouraged, and countenanced, to agree that this Court will not be in a position to attend the grievance of the petitioner, for non- compliance of the order dated 1st April, 2011. 8. Taking survey of above facts, I hold that it was expected of the management - respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 to have taken the order dated 1st April, 2011, in its proper spirit and to either discharge its obligation by allowing the petitioner to resume, or to release the wages, which the Tribunal had directed. Filing of review application, by itself, will not be a clog to proceed ahead for the just cause of the petitioner. Consequently, respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 are directed to pay consolidated amount of Rs.32,000/- ( Rs. thirty two thousand) which, covers eight 5 CP NO.271 of 2011 months' salary, as per the preliminary entitlement of the petitioner, within a month from today. The pay order be directly delivered at petitioner's place, under acknowledgment. The learned Presiding Officer dealing with the review application shall endeavour to dispose of such application within time frame within four months, un- influenced by present petition. Contempt Petition disposed of in above terms. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) ... agp/217-11cp