: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.197 OF 2007 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.57 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1315 OF 2006 Miss Alka Hari Sarate ....Petitioner V/s. Mrs.Suman S. Chandrashekhar & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.P.R. Arjunwadkar with Mr.D.W. Bhosale for the Petitioner. Mr.I.M. Khairdi for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.D.A. Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent No.5. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 31ST MARCH, 2008. P.C. : 1. The Petitioner alleges that the Respondents have committed contempt of an order dated 26.3.2007 passed in L.P.A. No.57 of 2007 in Writ Petition No.1315 of 2006. I will presume that what is actually contended is that the contempt was committed of an order dated 16.11.2006 passed by the learned single Judge. 2. The order dated 16.11.2006 was an interim order in terms of the interim order dated 17.8.2005 confirmed on 24.1.2006 by the School Tribunal. By the : 2 : said order dated 17.8.2005, the Respondents were directed inter-alia to allow the Petitioner to work in her "original post" as before and the salary be drawn and paid to her. This order was confirmed by an order dated 25.1.2006. Ultimately by an order dated 4.2.2006, Appeal under Section 9 was allowed. That order was challenged in the above Writ Petition. While granting the relief, the said interim order dated 16.11.2006 was passed. The main dispute at this stage is whether the Petitioner ought to be treated under the said order dated 17.8.2005 as on a clock hour basis or on a permanent basis. It is difficult at this stage to decide this question finally. The matter must await the hearing of the Writ Petition itself. 3. That the Respondents may have treated her on a permanent basis after passing of the aforesaid order is not conclusive of the matter at this stage. It is pertinent to note that even in the order of the School Tribunal there is a reference to the Petitioner as having been appointed only on a clock hour basis. Here she contends that she ought to be appointed on a full time basis and considered to be on a full time post. : 3 : 4. There is no dispute that the order has been complied with on the basis that the Petitioner was appointed on a clock hour basis. 5. This issue is directly contested by both the parties. It is not possible to state that the Respondents are guilty of contempt at this stage. The orders of which the contempt is alleged themselves do not specify as to which category the Petitioner ought to be appointed in at the interlocutory stage. 6. The Contempt Petition is therefore dismissed. However the dismissal of the Contempt Petition does not affect the rights of the Petitioner to claim amounts as a permanent employee if it is ultimately found that she was entitled to the same.