( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 144 OF 2005 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2573 OF 2004 Kailas s/o. Lalsing Rathod .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents Shri Ajay S. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for respondent State. Shri N.T. Bhagat, Advocate for respondent No.3. Shri V.R. Sonwalkar, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. RESERVED ON : 05.09.2009 PRONOUNCED ON : 11.09.2009 O R D E R :- 1. This Contempt Petition is filed by the original petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2573 of 2004. The impugned order passed on 29.04.2004 is as follows:- ( 2 ) “Rule. Shri E.P. Sawant, learned Government Pleader waives service for respondent No.1 and Shri N.T. Bhagat, learned Advocate, waives service for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C).” 2. It is argued before this Court that in-spite of above said order, the respondents are not paying salary in the pay-scale of Rs.3200-4900 to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he was given appointment as Shikshan Sevak. After completion of three years on 29.07.2004, he was entitled to salary of Assistant Teacher in the pay-scale of Rs. 3200-4900. Up to September, 2004, he was working on fixed pay of Rs. 1500/- towards salary and this is clear breach of order. 3. In order to explain his stand, the petitioner has stated that he is B.A. B.P.Ed. and belongs to N.T.-A category. In response to advertisement published by respondent No.2, for filing vacancy in respondent No.3 School in May, 2002, the petitioner was interviewed and came to be appointed as Shikshan Sevak w.e.f. 01.10.2000. His services ( 3 ) were terminated on 30.04.2001 and was again reappointed on 21.10.2001. However, respondent No.4 did not accord approval to his appointment and therefore the petitioner filed Appeal No. 2 of 2003 before the Grievance Committee, which came to be allowed on 16.04.2003. The petitioner joined service on 01.05.2003, as per order passed in appeal by the Grievance Committee, to which respondent No.4 accorded approval for three academic years w.e.f. 01.10.2000. As a matter of fact, in view of his initial appointment on 01.10.2000, upon completion of three years he was eligible to be appointed as Assistant Teacher in D.Ed. scale and yet the management forwarded the proposal for appointment of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak only and respondent No.4 accorded approval to the appointment of the petitioner as untrained teacher in the pay-scale prescribed for untrained teacher with a condition that the petitioner should get himself trained. It is further stated that the petitioner has opted for History as one of the subjects while undergoing B.P.Ed. training and therefore he was eligible to be considered as trained graduate teacher and required to be granted approval accordingly. However, he was continued to be appointed as Shikshan Sevak. The management thereafter made it clear that ( 4 ) he would not be continued in service after 30.04.2004. Therefore, he filed Writ Petition No. 2573 of 2004, which is still pending. However, at the time of admission, above said order is passed. Prayer clause (C) in Writ Petition No. 2573 of 2004 is as follows :- “Pending hearing and final disposal of the Writ Petition, the respondents may kindly be directed to continue the services of the petitioner and to pay him salary regularly.” 4. Thus, according to the petitioner he was not granted pay-scale of Assistant Teacher and therefore this contempt petition is filed. 5. The learned advocate Shri Sonwalkar for respondent No.4 stated that after termination on 03.04.2001, appeal was decided on 16.04.2003. Proposal for payment of salary in pay-scale was submitted only on 23.07.2005, pending this petition. So, it is clear that the management has forwarded the proposal during pendency of the contempt petition. 6. Adv. Shri Sonwalkar stated that this is a contempt petition and not a writ petition. This Court cannot decide ( 5 ) whether the petitioner is entitled to something more than what was allowed by interim order dated 29.04.2004, which is quoted above. He cited two cases. First is Jhareshwar Prasad Paul and Anr. V/s. Tarak Nath Ganguly and Ors., (2002) 5 SCC 352. In that case, in para 11, the Supreme Court laid down the law as follows :- “11. ....................... The contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question whether there has been any deliberate disobedience of the order of the court and if the conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed such disobedience is contumacious. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by the applicant. The court has to consider the direction issued in the judgment or order and not to consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have contained. At the cost of repetition, be it stated here that the court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party, which is alleged to have committed deliberate default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. If the judgment or order does not contain any specific direction regarding a matter or if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein then it will be better to direct the parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for clarification of the order instead of the court exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the power to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. If this limitation is borne in mind then criticisms which ( 6 ) are sometimes leveled against the courts exercising contempt of court jurisdiction "that it has exceeded its powers in granting substantive relief and issuing a direction regarding the same without proper adjudication of the dispute" in its entirety can be avoided. ..................” 7. The learned advocate also relied upon case of S.D. Shende and Anr. V/s. M/s. Madhuri Constructions and Anr., 1994 (1) Mah.L.R. 27, in which same principle is followed and it is said that the Court dealing with Contempt Petition has limitation and it cannot enter into question which are required to be argued by the parties in the regular proceedings and get decision of the Court. 8. In this case the writ petition is pending and according to Shri Sonwalkar, proper remedy is to approach the writ Court and seek further directions regarding regular salary in the pay-scale. 9. Adv. Shri Sonwalkar argued that when the petitioner was terminated and was directed to be reinstated, he was working as Shikshan Sevak and so he was reinstated as Shikshan Sevak and he was paid what is payable to a Shikshan ( 7 ) Sevak. Whether he has completed three years of Shikshan Sevak as required under rules, circulars and Government Resolutions and is entitled to be appointed as Assistant Teacher on regular pay-scale is something which is debatable. It is stated that salary payable to Shikshan Sevak is being paid regularly and there is no contempt. 10. The learned advocate drew my attention to the Government Resolution No. PRE/1098/1945/Pra.Shi.-1 dated 10th March, 2000, and pointed out that the Shikshan Sevak, who holds proper educational qualification, is entitled to the monthly remuneration of Rs. 2500/- He also pointed out Appendix "A" with it, which gives the scheme. In para 2, it is stated that the Educational Qualification of Shikshan sevak is S.S.C/H.S.C. and D.Ed. In the present case, the contempt petitioner has produced certificate showing that he had passed D.Ed, in the examination held in October, 2008 and he got certificate on 21.01.2009. Said certificate is taken on record during arguments and marked "X". So, educational qualification was acquired by the petitioner only recently and not before filing the Contempt Petition. ( 8 ) 11. As per Appendix “A”, Shikshan Sevak who is holding qualification other than S.S.C./H.S.C. + D.Ed. is entitled to monthly payment of Rs. 1500/-. As per Clause 7 (B), in-case D.Ed. candidate is not available, as an exception B.Ed./B.P.Ed. Graduate can be appointed as Shikshan Sevak, but one of the subject for degree must be one subject in the school. There is no dispute that the appointment of present petitioner was as per said rule, but it is clear that as Shikshan Sevak he was entitled to fixed pay of Rs. 1500/-, as he had not completed D.Ed. At Exh. R-2 with reply affidavit, respondent No.4 has produced order dated 23.11.2005 approving appointment to the petitioner as untrained Shikshan Sevak, subject to decision of writ petition. The approval was given from 14.06.2005 to 30.04.2006 with monthly remuneration of Rs. 1500/-. 12. The learned advocate for the respondent No.4 stated that as per Government Resolution dated 27th February, 2003, produced at Exh. R-3, with reply affidavit of respondent No. 4, candidate appointed as Shikshan Sevak was to complete D.Ed. within a period of three years and he could get one year extension. It is also mentioned in para 1(B) that an ( 9 ) untrained teacher who does not become trained i.e. does not acquire qualification of D.Ed., would lose right over his service. It is also reiterated that trained teacher was to get Rs.3000/-; whereas untrained teacher was to get Rs. 1500/-, as per Government Resolution dated 04.06.2004 until D.Ed. qualification was obtained. Even graduate or post- graduate teachers including B.Ed., Shikshan Sevak were considered as untrained. 13. It is argued by advocate for the petitioner that since more than three years are over, the petitioner is entitled to permanency and reliance was placed on Section 5 (2) and (2A) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short “M.E.P.S. Act”). Said provision is as follows :- “5. Certain obligations of Management of private schools :- (1) x x x x x (2) Every person appointed to fill a permanent vacancy except shikshan sevak shall be on probation for a period of two years. Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) (4), he shall, on completion of this probation period of two years, be deemed to have been confirmed : ( 10 ) [Provided that, every person appointed as shikshan sevak shall be on probation for a period of three years] (2A) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4), shikshan sevak shall, on completion of the probation period of three years, be deemed to have been appointed and confirmed as a teacher. 14. It is true that as per proviso to sub-section (2), every person appointed as Shikshan Sevak shall be on probation for a period of three years and after completion of probation period of three years, he shall be deemed to have been confirmed teacher. In this case, continuation of present petitioner is as per order of the Court. The Court has not directed whether petitioner would be entitled to said benefit of Section 5 (2A) of the M.E.P.S. Act. The learned advocate for respondent No.4 stated that even though the petitioner was in service from 2000, he could not complete D.Ed. till October, 2008 and as per para 16 of the Government Resolution dated 27.02.2003, he was not entitled to even continue as Shikshan Sevak as he had not completed D.Ed. within four years. 15. In my opinion, these are the questions which are to ( 11 ) be decided in the writ petition itself and they are not to be considered by the Court dealing with the Contempt Petitions. It has only to see whether order passed by the Court is duly obeyed. Admittedly, the petitioner is reinstated as Shikshan Sevak and he is continued as such. His rights to be confirmed as teacher and to get the pay-scale claimed by him are the matters to be decided by the Court in the writ petition and this Court while considering the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, cannot decide such debatable questions. 16. In this view of the matter, this Contempt Petition has no merit. The same deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, the Contempt Petition is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/SEP09/cp144.05