1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.110/2006 with CA NO.12829/2009 (Mahepati Dombulwad Vs. The State of Mah. & Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.SB Gastgar, Advocate forPetitioner; Mr.DV Tele, AGP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr.VS Panpatte, Advocate for Respondent No.2; Mr.Choukidar, Advocate for Respondent No.3 ___ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 27 th January, 2010. ... 1) Mr.SB Gastgar for the petitioner. Mr. Tele, AGP for State; Mr. Panpatte appears for Respondent no.2; Mr.Choukidar appears for Respondent no.3 has tendered affidavit in reply, copy received by the petitioner's counsel. 2) Shri Gokul B.Maware Collector, Dhule and Shri Govind Nandede, Deputy Director of Education, Latur region, present, identified by respective counsel. Their presence is dispensed with for the next date. 3) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 4) The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 8th June, 2005 quashed and set aside the order of termination dated 8th January, 2004, directing the 2 Committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner within stipulated period. The Division Bench, while issuing the directions, indicated in paragraph 9 " We remand the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for a decision afresh for holding a de novo inquiry into the caste/tribe claim of the petitioner. In the last para of the order, it is observed as under - " The order of termination of the petitioner, dated 8.1.2004 is quashed and set aside. However as we have directed the Committee to decide the caste (tribe) claim of the petitioner within a stipulated period, we do not propose to grant reinstatement at this stage. However, we make it clear that the employer/Zilla Parishad shall not fill in the post of petitioner and in the event, if the petitioner succeeds in establishing his caste (tribe) claim, he would be entitled to the reinstatement in service and consequential benefits." 5) The aftermath of the matter is, Scrutiny Committee has validated the caste claim of the petitioner herein. The petitioner urged that the term `consequential benefits' means the arrears of salary for the period when he was terminated or when he did not work. During the course of submission, it is pointed, in spite of caste claim being validated for certain period of four months, he was not appointed or no dues were paid. 3 6) On behalf of the respondents, a statement is made, four months' dues of the petitioner herein are paid. 7) Now, the question revolves about the period/salary for the period from 8th January, 2004 to 15th August, 2005. During this period, the petitioner was not in service and did not work. 8) Though the petitioner, by virtue of validation of his caste claim, was entitled to resume the duties, the term `consequential benefits' referred by the Division Bench of this Court, will not be allowed to be interpreted to have benefits of the absenting period, i.e. 8th January, 2004 to 15th August, 2005. The Department is not at fault, as it was the invalidation of caste claim of the petitioner, which was the root cause in the matter. It is apparent, the answering respondents have no personal grudge/grievance against the employee, the teacher. The interpretation of the `consequential benefits', as caused by the answering respondent in the set of facts, cannot be said to be inviting any wrath or action for contempt of this Court. 9) The learned Counsel for the petitioner took recourse to the Judgment in the matter of Rhone-Poulene (India) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. - AIR 2000 SC 4 3182 and to the judgment of A.P.SRTC & Anr. Vs. S.Narsagoud - (2003) 2 SCC 212. In the later case, the respondent was a conductor in the employment of the appellant, he remained absent from duty between 5.6.1982 and 8.8.1982 and again for the period between 13.10.1992 and 1.11.1992. He faced the charge of unauthorized absence from the duty. The appeal was allowed. However, the Apex Court did not entertain the claim of grant of wages for the period when he remained absent. 10)In the former case of Rhone Poulene (India) Ltd., it was a case of transfer. The issuance of transfer order by the competent authority, which was found to be invalid order, the consequential benefits was taken into consideration and the Apex Court observed - " whether the workman is entitled or not to the benefit of settlement was not subject matter of award.” These judgments are not applicable to the facts in issue. 11)Contempt Petition dismissed. Contempt notice discharged. CA disposed of. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/cp110.06