1 CP NO.248/2005 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.248/2005 in WP NO.5529/2003. (Anil s/o Laxmikant Lathkar Vs. Manmathappa s/o Babuappa Betale and Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.SV Kurundkar, Addl.GP for State. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 21 st DECEMBER, 2010. ... 1) Counsel called absent. 2) It was informed that the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 5529 of 2003 dated 15.12.2003 is not complied with. The order reads as under, - “(a) Respondent No.3 to enquire into the allegations made by the petitioner against Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and after issuing notice to both the parties, and examining the records of the school, to decide within twelve weeks, whether the petitioner is entitled to salary and, if so, whether he has not been paid the same for the period for which he alleges to have not been paid, and thereafter pass necessary and appropriate orders.” 3) It is explicit, the Education department 2 CP NO.248/2005 has taken steps thereafter. 4) In the affidavit in reply on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in paragraph 3, it is informed, there is no order specifically mandating the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to comply. The order dated 15.12.2003 in paragraph (a) clearly mentions that the respondent no.3 to enquire into the allegations made by the petitioner against the respondent nos.1 and 2. 5) The Education Officer has passed the orders which do not fix liability and responsibility upon the respondent nos.1 and 2 to make payment, failure to which to face the contempt. 6) Considering the nature of the controversy and affidavit, as above, I do not see there is any contempt on the part of the respondent. Contempt Petition lacks merit, dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/