1 cp-458.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 458 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3210 OF 2008 Dilip s/o Govindrao Mare, Age: 45 years, Occ: at present Nil, R/o. Walandi, Tq. Deoni, District Latur. ...PETITIONER VERSUS Sambhaji s/o Rama Kokane, Age: 60 years, Occ: Secretary, Gramin Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Walandi, Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur R/o. Sant Dnyaneshwar Nagar, LIC Colony, Behind Durga Hotel, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur and others. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. T.M. Venjane, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A.V. Patil, Advocate holding for Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for Resp.Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent No.3. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 26TH JULY, 2011 PER COURT : This contempt petition alleges 2 cp-458.10 disobedience of the order dated 12-08-2010 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3210 of 2008. Relevant directions are in Para-11 of the impugned order. Para-11 reads thus : "11. Taking overall view of the matter and on consideration of the reasons discussed hereinabove, the impugned order is quite un-sustainable and liable to the interfered with. Hence, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in the service with 50% of the back wages within a period of four weeks and that the back wages will be payable to him from the date of termination till this date and that he will be entitled to full pay for the period from today onwards, if he is not reinstated in service. The petitioner will be entitled to recover cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) from the respondents 1 and 2 being cost of the present petition. Petition 3 cp-458.10 disposed of. Rule made absolute accordingly." 2. It is the contention of Counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the appeal, he was in the employment of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from 30-06-2000 to 31-08-2008. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, since the termination order itself is set aside, for the aforesaid period, the petitioner could have received 100% salary. However, only 60% salary was paid to the petitioner. He is entitled to remaining 40% salary. Learned Counsel further submitted that, even learned Single Judge has observed in Para-11 that the petitioner will be entitled to full pay for the period from the date of passing the order. However, the petitioner is not being paid as per the said direction. Therefore, according to learned Counsel for the petitioner, there is disobedience of the order and hence, this Court may invoke its contempt jurisdiction and punish the respondents. 4 cp-458.10 3. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that, after termination of the service, the petitioner approached to School Tribunal and filed appeal and in appeal, direction was given by the School Tribunal to take the petitioner in service on payment of 60% salary. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 31-03-3008 and therefore, there was no question of 100% salary for the said period. Learned Counsel also submitted that, direction given by this Court to pay 50% back wages from the date of termination till date of passing of the order by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, 50% back wages has been calculated and the said amount is paid to the petitioner. This position is not disputed by learned Counsel for the petitioner. . Learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 further submits that, necessary proposal is submitted to the District Vocational 5 cp-458.10 Education and Training Office, Latur on 14-07-2011 and accordingly, after the necessary sanction and approval, the petitioner will be paid full pay from 12-08-2010. 4. Learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent No. 3 has tendered across the bar affidavit in reply of one Mr. Dr. Ravindra s/o Chandrashekar Balapure, working as In charge Joint Director of Vocation Education and Training, Regional Office, Aurangabad. Learned A.G.P. invited my attention to Paragraph Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the said affidavit in reply and submitted that, as on today, 50% back wages were paid to the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned A.G.P. for respondent No.3. At the outset, it would be relevant to reproduce Paragraph Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.3, which reads thus : 6 cp-458.10 "6. I respectfully say and submit that on 29.4.00 the petitioner had been terminated by the respondent management. Thereafter, he approached before School Tribunal wherein School Tribunal passed order on 30.6.2000 and directed to pay 60% salary till final disposal of stay application. As per said order till 31.8.2008 amount of Rs.7,52,265/- have been paid to the petitioner. 7. I further respectfully say and submit that for the period of 1.4.2008 to 12.8.2010, 50% wages which comes to Rs.3,36,756/- have been paid to the petitioner. I say that for the period of 13.8.2008 to 31.12.2010, 100% salary which comes to Rs.47,346/- have been paid to the petitioner. 8. I respectfully say and submit that after 12.1.2011 regular salary of the petitioner have been paid, but as on today, the reinstatement of the petitioner is not continued by the management and they did not submit the proposal for fixation of 7 cp-458.10 wages as well as regularization of the services of the petitioner as per order, therefore, the District Vocational Education and Training Office, Latur had not fixed the salary as per six pay commission. The petitioner is getting salary, which was getting by him at the relevant time i.e., at the time of termination of his service. Therefore, there is some variance / difference in between the management calculation and petitioner calculation." 6. Therefore, from reading the said affidavit in reply and in particular Paragraph Nos. 6, 7 and 8, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner is paid 50% back wages. So far full pay is concerned, as submitted by Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, already proposal is submitted in that respect. The contention of Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to 100% salary amount for the period 31-03-2008 is required to be examined in the 8 cp-458.10 light of direction of this Court in Para-11. . This Court directed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner in the service with 50% back wages from the date of termination till date of passing of the order i.e. 12-08-2010. Therefore, the period for which the petitioner has worked in the school of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, that period is also included while giving direction to the respondents in respect of 50% back wages. Directions given in Para-11 of the order of which disobedience has been alleged in this contempt petition, are very clear and those needs no any further interpretation or clarification. The back wages are ordered to be paid from the date of termination till Writ Petition was finally decided. 7. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, there is no any disobedience much less willful disobedience of the order of which the contempt has been alleged in this contempt 9 cp-458.10 petition. Therefore, no further orders are required to be passed in this contempt petition. Contempt Petition is disposed of. Notice stands discharged. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/JUL11