1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CP No. 15/2006 in Writ Petition No.3773/2004 Kuldeep s/o Atmaram Shende and 3 others Vs. Budhaji s/o Laxman Gedam Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A. Parchure, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr. M.P. Khajanchi, Adv. for the respondent. CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 14th JUNE 2010. 1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent absent. 2] The petitioner herein feel that the order dated 11.1.2005 passed by the Division Bench, which reads as under:- “Heard Rule In the meantime the respondent no. 3 would continue to pay salary of the petitioners if they are in employment, from its own funds till the matter is decided by this Court or the services of the petitioners are determined by the respondent.” The above-said order is not complied with in its 2 letter and spirit. 3] The learned counsel for the petitioner repeatedly harped that the salary is not paid to the petitioner. He accepted Writ Petition No.3733/2004 is still pending, to be heard and decided. 4] The petitioner, in reply from the respondent in unequivocal terms illustrate that the appointment of the teacher petitioners herein was dealt with. The petitioner no.1 was paid entire salary of Rs. 6455/- for the month of May 2005 and thereafter he was paid salary as per period-wise work calculated on monthly basis which would be clear from the communication dated 30.4.2007, issued by Principal of Junior College in favour of petitioner no.1 and also communication dated 7th March 2008 issued by the Principal of the College in favour of the Manager of the bank. The petition demonstrates that petitioner no.1 has also been paid entire salary and he has suppressed the said material fact of payment of salary from this Court. The statement of account is annexed as Annexure VI. It is pointed that so far as respondent no.4 is concerned, he did not discharge his duties, and is not entitled for the wages for absentee period. 5] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the payment made by the Management is not within the bracket of the terms “salary” as the petitioners are entitled to pay scale of Rs. 5500.. to 12,500. 3 6] This may be correct, however, before this Court there is nothing to demonstrate, that this pay scale was accepted any time by the Management as the salary payable to the petitioners herein. The case put-forth by the Management is drawing salary of Rs. 6455/- by the petitioners and the same has been remitted to the bank account. In the situation, I do not see any disobedience on the part of the alleged contemnor. The contempt petition lacks of merit. Dismissed. Rule discharged. (K.U. Chandiwal ) JUDGE Ambulkar.