1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 137/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 794/1997 ( Arun Pralhad Charthad vs. Shri A.N.Dongre, The Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Taining, Amravati) ...................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ...................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. R.M.Sharma, Advocate, h/f Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate, for petitioner Mr.Mujumdar, AGP, for Respondent ... CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 20th SEPTEMBER, 2010. This contempt petition complains about willful disobedience of the common judgment and order passed by this Court on 3rd February, 2009, in Writ Petition Nos. 1327, 1328, 1318, 818, 794 and 877 of 1997. The operative part of the order of which the contempt has been complained of is contained in Para 7 of the judgment, which is reproduced below. “7. In the result, the respondent no. 3 in Writ Petitions No. 1327, 1328 and 1318 of 1997 would work on the post on which they were appointed in the year 1992 and the petitioners in Writ Petitions No. 818, 794 and 877 of 1997 would continue to work on the post on which they were appointed/absorbed during the pendency of these writ petitions, with continuity of service. The Education Officer and the Deputy Director of Education should grant the 2 necessary approval accordingly. The writ petitions are partly allowed in terms of the aforesaid directions and observations.” 2] The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training is required to grant approval to the appointment of petitioner w.e.f. 24.11.1994, whereas the direction is that the Deputy Director of Education should grant necessary approval accordingly. It is not in dispute that the Deputy Director of Education has granted approval to the appointment of the petitioners w.e.f. 10.3.1999. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is not the compliance of the order and the direction issued to the Deputy Director of Education as afore stated should be read in continuation of the direction of this Court to continue the petitioner in the post in which he was appointed/absorbed during the pendency of the writ petitions with continuity of service. 3] Although it is a civil contempt alleged in the present petition, the burden of proof required to be discharged by the petitioner is that of beyond reasonable doubt. If at all there are two interpretations of the order passed by the Court, then definitely the benefit of doubt should go to the contemnor. The petitioner has not made any grievance against the management that he has not been appointed or absorbed on the post on which he was working, with 3 continuity of service. The grievance is that the Deputy Director of Education has not granted approval with effect from the date of appointment i.e. 24.11.1994. Such a direction is absent in the operative part of the order which is reproduced above. The direction is to grant necessary approval accordingly. If according to the Deputy Director of Education, the necessary approval is required to be accorded w.e.f. 10.3.1999, it cannot be said that he has committed willful disobedience or breach of the order passed by this Court. 4] In view of above, there is no substance in this petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the dismissal of the present contempt petition will not prevent the petitioner from adopting appropriate remedies for the appropriate reliefs. No costs. JUDGE Rvjalit