1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.77/2009. (Smt. Sunanda Raghunath Pawase Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Pradeep Shahane, Adv. For petitioner; Mr.VB Ghatge, AGP for State; Mr.RJ Nirmal, Adv. h/for Mr. PP More, Adv. For Resp.No.2. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 16 th November, 2010. ... 1) Heard. 2) In Writ Petition No.7059/2006, by order dated 28th February, 2007, Rule was issued and this Court observed in paragraph 3 as under : “3.It is undisputed that the demand has been raised by the workman/respondent, who was terminated in the year 1979; sometime in the year 1996, the Labour court, on the basis that the respondent has worked for 240 days, granted the relief of appointment as fresher. The petitioner is a public body. The law as regards regularization and permanency is crystallized by the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and Ors. Reported in (2006) 4 2 SCC 44. Hence, in that view of the matter, there would be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (D). In the event there is any work available with the petitioner to be allotted to the daily wagers, the case of the respondent may be considered for such allotment of work as per her seniority in the category of Daily Wagers.” 3) Mr.Shahane, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits, in spite of there being such order, as above, the alleged contemnor (Zilla Parishad, Beed), is not providing suitable work as daily wager to the petitioner and hence contempt. 4) The learned Counsel for the Zilla Parishad submits, presently there is no work available and whenever it will be so feasible, case of the petitioner herein would be considered. 5) Mr.Shahane says such statement is an eye-wash as several persons have retired and few persons are appointed as daily wagers. 6) The record shows otherwise. It was only appointment of a single person, that too pursuant to the directions of the Court and it could not be said that to ditch interest of the present petitioner, the Zilla Parishad has illegally acted. The directions of this Court referred above though illustrate to provide the work, 3 if available, it will not be mandatorily expected of the Zilla Parishad to be so done. 7) In the set of above facts and the aforesaid statement made by learned Counsel for the Zilla Parishad, I do not see that any violation or breach of the order is activated by the Zilla Parishad to warrant action under Contempt of Courts Act. 8) The Contempt Petition lacks merits, dismissed. Contempt Notice discharged. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/