:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 25 OF 2009 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 25 OF 2009 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 25 OF 2009 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1513 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 1513 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 1513 OF 2006 Mohammed Salim Abdul Karim ..Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. A. N. Maniyar for Petitioner. Ms. Uma Palsuledesai, AGP, for Respondents. CORAM : DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. CORAM : DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. CORAM : DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE : 23RD APRIL, 2009 DATE : 23RD APRIL, 2009 DATE : 23RD APRIL, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. By the Order of the Division Bench dated 2.4.2007, the petition under Article 226 was disposed of with a direction that the respondents shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with the principles of natural justice and communicate it to the petitioner within two weeks. 2. The claim of the petitioner is that though his salary should be computed on the basis of the recommendations of the Bhole Pay Commission, no steps were taken in pursuance of the Order, which :2: led to the institution of a Contempt Petition by the petitioner. On 11.9.2007 the Contempt Petition was disposed of, on a statement made by the learned AGP that if the petitioner appeared before Mr. Andhale, Joint Director of Education on 26.9.2007, the petitioner would be heard and an order would be passed within 15 days of the date of the conclusion of the hearing and would be communicated to the petitioner. This Court observed that though the time schedule which was prescribed by the Division Bench was not observed, having regard to the peculiar facts ad circumstances, no action was being taken under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 but that would not prevent the petitioner from presenting a fresh petition in the event the directions issued by the Court were not complied with. 3. A hearing took place on 26.9.2007 before the Joint Director. On 10.10.2007 an Order was passed by the Joint Director, Higher Education, Mumbai Region. The Order of the Joint Director made certain observations in regard to why the claims of the petitioner were not found to be tenable. But it concluded by saying that after the queries that were raised were answered by the petitioner an Order :3: would be passed by the Joint Director. 4. The petitioner has averred that on 25.2.2008 and 8.5.2008 clarifications were furnished to the Joint Director. This was followed by a further communication dated 7.6.2008. Eventually on 28.6.2008 a fresh communication has been addressed to the petitioner reiterating the observations contained in the Order dated 10.10.2007 and rejecting the request of the petitioner. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the representations that were addressed on his behalf on 25.2.2008 and 8.5.2008 have not been dealt with adequately. Both the Orders dated 10.10.2007 and 20.1.2009 when read in their entirety would show that the grievance has been rejected. Whether it has been rejected for valid reasons or otherwise would not fall for determination in the contempt jurisdiction. 6. The learned AGP appearing on behalf of the State has stated that Mr. M. S. Andhale who was the then Joint Director of Education and who has been impleaded as the 2nd respondent was suffering from cancer and died in March 2009 and that the :4: present Joint Director had taken over charge in December 2008. The learned AGP also stated that as a matter of fact since the petitioner was a Class IV employee, a sympathetic view was taken since an adverse order would have resulted in commencement of recovery proceedings against him. In view of the fact that the grievance of the petitioner has not been accepted, it will not be appropriate or proper for this Court to take further steps in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction. There was undoubtedly a delay in responding to the representations of the petitioner dated 25.2.2008 and 8.5.2008. But this is not a case where there was a wilful breach by the Department of the Orders passed by the Division Bench as would be evident from the circumstance that on 10.10.2007 an Order had been passed informing the petitioner that his grievance was not tenable. 7. In these circumstances it would not be expedient to pursue the contempt proceedings any further. Should the petitioner be aggrieved by the final orders that have been passed against him on 10.10.2007 and 20.1.2009, it will be open to him to take recourse to such remedies as are available in law. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of. :5: sd/- (DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.) (DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.) (DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)