1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 161 OF 2008 in Writ Petition No. 5001 of 2007 Vinod Sahebrao Ghode, Aged about 37 years, R/o Maya nagar, Amravati, Tah. and Dist. Amravati. ........PETITIONER. // VERSUS // 1] Madhukarrao S/o Sukhdeorao Abhyankar, President, Bhumiputra Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, C/o 33, Congress Nagar, Amravati, Tah. And Distt. Amravati. 2] Gajanan Gowardhanrao Wankhade, Head Master, Savitribai Fule Vidyalaya, Yashoda Nagar, Amravati, Tah. And Distt. Amravati. 3] Mr. S. K. Pawar, Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Amravati. ........RESPONDENTS =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. S.D.Chopde, Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. M.V.Mohokar, Advocate for Respondents No.1 & 2 Mr. A.G.Mujumdar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.3 C ORAM : Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J. DATED : 25th February, 2010. The petitioner has filed this Contempt Petition alleging that respondents Nos.1 to 3 have willfully 2 violated the order dated 10th December, 2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5001 of 2007. The said order records the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent no.1, by which the order of the Tribunal was modified. It was directed that the respondent no.1 (present petitioner) shall be entitled to continuity in the service, but not entitled to any amount towards arrears of backwages. In the contempt petition, the petitioner claims that he resume duty immediately on 12th December, 2007. But, the respondents had not been paying salary to him. Respondents no.1 and 2 allege in their reply that the petitioner did not do any work in the school. He used to only sign the muster and go away. Hence, he is not entitled to salary. It is seen that when the representation of the petitioner was heard by the respondent no.3 - Education Officer, he gave a statement in writing that he would work from that day i.e. 27th August, 2009 and that he be paid salary for the work done by him. Accordingly, the respondents have paid salary to him. There was also dispute as regards the fixation of pay of the petitioner on 3 the basis of the continuity in service. Respondent no.1 has now sent a proposal to respondent no.3 for pay fixation of the petitioner with continuity in service, as directed in the order dated 10th December, 2007. The respondents thus purged the contempt. Therefore, they are discharged from the notice. Mr. Chopde, the learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed an apprehension that the respondent no.3 -Education Officer (Secondary) may or may not accept the proposal for pay fixation with continuity in service and therefore, some directions may be issued to him recording the same and also directions be issued to the respondent no.1 that in the event respondent no.3 refuses to accept the proposal sent by it as it is, respondent no.1 shall bear the difference in the salary. No such directions are required to be given as the order dated 10th December, 2007 is clear in that regard. Hence, the contempt petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE. Diwale