1 C.P. No.91/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.91 OF 2008 Manisha Yosef Pol ... PETITIONER VERSUS Pramila Pandurang Sathe & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri L.V. Sangit, Advocate for the petitioner Shri R.J. Godbole, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent No.2 ..... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 2nd August, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This contempt petition alleges disobedience of the order passed by the School Tribunal on 20.10.2006 in Appeal No. 23/2006. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, in spite of the orders of the School Tribunal on 20.10.2006 in Appeal No.23/2006, no steps whatsoever have been taken by the respondents to comply the order. After filing this Contempt Petition on 23.12.2008, the petitioner is allowed to 2 C.P. No.91/2008 resume the duty and she is being regularly paid the salary. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that, though the interim order was passed by the Tribunal on 24.2.2006 and same came to be confirmed by order dated 20.10.2006, no salary is paid to the petitioner w.e.f. 24.2.2006. The learned counsel further submits that, when the respondents refused to execute/ implement the order of the School Tribunal on 15.6.2008, that was the cause for filing this contempt petition. Therefore, it cannot be said that the contempt petition is not within limitation. . On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents submit that since the petitioner has resumed the duties in the month of December 2008, any further grievance of the petitioner can be redressed before the School Tribunal and while hearing the appeal by the School Tribunal, the same point can be agitated and the School Tribunal will consider the entitlement of the petitioner for the salary from February 2006 till 23.12.2008. . Upon hearing counsel for the respective parties, I am of the opinion that, after filing this contempt petition, the petitioner is allowed to resume duties. In that sense, the order of the School Tribunal to allow the petitioner to resume the duty/ reinstatement is 3 C.P. No.91/2008 complied with. I find some force in the contention of the petitioner that from February 2006 till December 2008 the petitioner is not paid salary. However, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that she did not work for the said period in the school, therefore, she is not entitled. In my opinion, the question regarding the entitlement of the petitioner for the salary for the period from February 2006 till December 2008 can be agitated by the School Tribunal after hearing the parties on merits. Therefore, this contempt petition is disposed of. Notice stands discharged. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) fmp/cp91.08