1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 128 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2261 OF 2008 Narayan s/o Gangadhar Kadtan ...Petitoner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. P.G. Gunale, advocate for the petitioner Mr. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr. M.D. Narwadkar, advocate for respondent No.5 Mr. I.D. Maniyar h/f Mr. V.S. Panpatte, advocate for R. No.6 ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 This contempt petition alleges disobedience of the order dated 18.9.2008 passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 2261 of 2008. Para 5 of the said order reads thus:- “ 5) From these facts, it would be clear that at the 2 highest the liability, to pay salary, in Mahatma Phule Primary School would be up to 25th March, 2008. Learned Counsel appearing for that school points out that upto December, 2007, they have forwarded the pay bills of the petitioner to Respondent No.5. Thus what remains are the pay-bills for the period from January to March 25th 2008. The respondent nos. 7 and 8 are directed to forward the said pay bills to the respondent no.5 within two weeks from today. On failure by the respondent nos. 7 and 8 to forward the pay bills of the petitioner, Respondent No.5 to appoint an administrator who will comply with the directions of this Court. If there be any contention between Respondent no.8 on one hand and the petitioner on the other, as regards payment of salary, that contention can be independently proceeded with and or considered in the appeal which has been preferred by the petitioner. If it is the contention of the respondent no.5 that the Respondent no.8 has illegally not allowed the petitioner to resume the duties, in the first instance, then to release the salary grants of the petitioner and thereafter proceed against the respondent no.8. 2 It is not in dispute that the salary, as directed by the Division Bench of this Court has been paid to the petitioner. The affidavit in reply and additional affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the respondent school which unequivocally indicates that the salary, as directed by this Court is paid to the petitioner. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that 3 though the statement was made before the Division Bench of this Court on 18.9.2008 that the school has forwarded pay bills of the petitioner till December, 2007, in fact no pay bills were forwarded to the respondent No.5 by the respondent school. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that respondents have mislead this court by making incorrect statement. 4 Learned counsel appearing of the respondent school submitted that due to communication gap between his client and himself, such statement was made inadvertently before this court. However, fact remains that for the relevant period the petitioner was not on duty and as a consequence though his name was mentioned in the salary sheet, however, no particulars were provided since he was not present for the said period and therefore, salary was not drawn. 5 Taking into consideration the affidavit in reply and the additional affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents and in view of the fact that entire salary has been paid to the petitioner, in my considered opinion, no case is made out to entertain this contempt petition. Hence, submission of counsel for the petitioner that the statement which was made by the advocate for respondent No.2 was misleading, is required to be rejected. I am satisfied with the steps taken by respondent No.2 school. The said statement was made inadvertently and as a result of communication gap between his client and himself. 4 In this view of the matter, no further fruitful purpose would be served by keeping this contempt petition pending. 6 In the light of the above, contempt petition stands disposed of. Notice discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. 7 At this stage learned counsel for respondent school brings to the notice of this court that an amount of Rs.30000/-, which is deposited in this Court, may be allowed to be withdrawn. Counsel for the petitioner has no objection for withdrawal of the said amount. Respondent No.5 is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.30,000/- deposited in this Court. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/