{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.203 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6996 OF 2007 Ku.Shashikala Pitambar Firke PETITIONER VERSUS New Era Education Society, Jalgoan & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. B.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner Mr. G.V.Wani, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Milind Patil, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. V.G.Shelke, AGP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 5th April 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard. The alleged contempt is that the respondents have not obeyed the order dated 18th November 2008. The order dated 18th November 2008 is reproduced herein below - “By way of ad interim order, stay to the direction regarding payment of back wages, on condition that the respondent No.1 is reinstated within a period of four weeks from today.” The writ petition No.6996/2007 was filed by the present respondent No.1. So far as present respondent No.2 is concerned, {2} she has nothing to do with the writ petition or present contempt petition. In the premise, without considering any other aspect, respondent No.2 is discharged from the contempt immediately. 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner is reinstated in the school run by respondent No.1, yet she is not paid any salary and hence the contempt is alleged. From the order dated 18th November 2008, it is clear that there are no directions to this effect, however statement is made by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that though no directions are issued, yet proposal in respect of approval of service and payment of salary of the petitioner is forwarded to the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. It is not disputed that the petitioner has joined services, however, there is dispute in respect of conduct of the petitioner that the petitioner though has joined the services, yet she is not ready to work. There were allegations against respondent No.1 and the petitioner by each other. It appears that now the situation is cooled down. Considering this aspect, as the petitioner is now reinstated, it appears that the directions dated 18th November 2008 are complied with and hence nothing remains in the contempt petition and, therefore, the contempt petition stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/cp203-09