1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Civil Application No. 8908/2008 WITH Contempt Petition No. 133/2008 (Gajanan Uddhaorao Garole VERSUS Jagarao Chavhan & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.B. Patil, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Dhumale h/f Shri Parchure, counsel for the R-1 & 2. Shri Khubalkar, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 5, 2009. This contempt petition seeks initiation of action against the respondent for non-compliance of this Court's directions in judgment rendered in Writ Petition No.2022/2003 on 20.06.2007. By the judgment dated 20.06.2007, while partly allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, this Court had directed the management to submit their rosters till the date of appointment of respective employees to the competent authorities for getting it certified in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 19.06.1996. The Court further observed that the 2 competent authority could ascertain the position of the roster submitted by the management and if the competent authority found that the appointments were made in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 19.06.1996, the competent authority could proceed to grant approval to the respective appointments. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent nos.1 and 2, the management, had failed to submit the roster and all the other relevant documents before the competent authority for verification of the same by the competent authority within a period of one month from the date of the judgment dated 20.06.2007, though the Court had directed the respondent nos.1 and 2 to do so. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner by Shri P.B. Patil that the respondent nos.1 and 2, the management, had failed to submit the documents to the competent authority within a period of one 3 month from the date of the judgment. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the first time, after the notice was issued to the respondents, it became known to the petitioner that the necessary documents were sent by the respondent nos.1 and 2- Management to the competent authority on 19.07.2007. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the competent authority also verified the roster and took the decision on 09.08.2007, the verification of the roster was not in accordance with the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 19.06.1996. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the aforesaid fact was stated by the petitioner in the Civil Application No.8908/2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner then stated that the entire salary is not paid to the petitioner by the respondent nos.1 and 2- Management. Shri Dhumale, the learned counsel for the 4 respondent nos.1 and 2, pointed out that the management had duly complied with the directions issued by this Court by the judgment dated 20.06.2007 as the roster and the necessary documents were submitted to the competent authority on 19.07.2007. Since this is the only grievance made by the petitioner against the respondent nos.1 and 2 in the contempt petition, according to the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2, the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed. Shri N.S. Khubalkar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3, submitted that the competent authority was not a party to the Writ Petition No.2202/2003 and the Court had asked the competent authority to complete the entire exercise of verifying the documents submitted by the petitioner within a period of three months from the 5 date of their submission. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the documents submitted by the respondent nos.1 and 2 were verified by the competent authority on 09.08.2007 and that is well within the time prescribed by the judgment dated 20.06.2007. The learned Assistant Government Pleader also sought for the dismissal of the contempt petition. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also perused the impugned order and the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.2202/2003. It appears from the submissions made on behalf of the respondents that the directions issued by this Court by the judgment dated 20.06.2007 have been duly complied with, by the respondents. The respondent nos.1 and 2 had submitted the roster and the documents to the competent authority on 19.07.2007, i.e. within the period of one month from 6 the date of the judgment dated 20.06.2007. Though the competent authority was not a party to the writ petition, it is rightly brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the documents were verified by the competent authority on 09.08.2007, i.e. well within the period of three months. On perusal of the averments made in the petition and the written submissions filed on behalf of the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3, it is clear that there is no disobedience of the judgment passed by this Court on 20.06.2007 in Writ Petition No.2202/2003. The contempt proceedings against the respondents are, therefore, liable to be dropped. Though the counsel for the petitioner has submitted during the course of arguments that the respondent nos.1 and 2 have not paid the arrears of salary to the petitioner in its entirety, there is no averment to this effect in the contempt 7 petition. For the reasons aforesaid, there is no reason to continue the contempt proceedings against the respondents. The contempt petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Civil Application No.8908/2008 is also disposed of accordingly. JUDGE APTE