1 14.conp-66 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 66 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITON NO. 993 OF 2009. Azmatunnisa Abdul Khalique. ..Petitioner. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr. A.N. Maniar, for Petitioner. Ms. Anjali Helekar, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Apte, Senior Advocate, a/w. Ms. T. Puranik, for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Mr. M.M. Vashi, i/b. M.P. Vashi & Asso., for Respondent No.6. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011. P.C. : The Petitioner herein had filed Writ Petition No. 993 of 2009 inter alia contending that the Respondent No.6 is a primary unaided school run by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and the Petitioner as a teacher in the said School is entitled to the salary as made applicable by the Corporation to recognised aided schools. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 6 paid a paltry amount of Rs. 1,000/- to the Petitioner. The Petitioner therefore prayed that the Respondents be directed to pay to the Petitioner the salary which the Petitioner is entitled to according to the provisions of Grant-in-Aid Code (the Code). It was contended before the Court on behalf of the Respondent School that if the salaries are to be paid 2 14.conp-66 to the teachers as per terms prescribed by the Code, the School will have to be closed down. This argument of the Respondent No. 6 school was not accepted by the Court and the Court was of the view that if the School is unable to pay the salary to its teachers as per the Code then the School has to face the consequence of being de- recognised. In view thereof, the Court passed the following directions :- “(i) The Education Officer of the B.M.C. to call both the Petitioner and the Management and to issue suitable directions in terms of the Code regarding payment of salaries, including the terms worked out between the parties, if any. (ii) Insofar as payment of salaries by schools recognised by the B.M.C. to issue directions that all managements will make payment of salaries only by cheques from a date to be prescribed by the Corporation so as to ensure that the salaries go into the hands of the teachers. Such a date shall not be later than four months from today, if the procedure is not already in place and file compliance in the Court. (iii) Inquiry to be completed not later than two months from today. If in terms of the findings in the inquiry, the amounts are not paid and with the time granted by the Inquiry Officer they are not paid, it will be open to the Education Officer to take steps to de-recognise the school.” 2. The Education Officer of the Corporation thereafter called a meeting which was attended by the Petitioner as well as the members of the Management of the Respondent No.6 School. At the said meeting, the Management admitted that they are not paying the Petitioner the salary as provided under the provisions of the Code, since they do not have enough funds. The question therefore of deciding the issue as to whether the Petitioner was paid salary as per the Code, or not, by the Educational Officer of the Corporation, did 3 14.conp-66 not arise. The Educational Officer therefore by his order dated 3rd September 2001 recorded the admission made on behalf of the Respondent No.6 School and warned them that if they fail to pay the Petitioner her salary as required under the Code, the Corporation will have to de-recognise the School. Since the Respondent No. 6 had no funds to pay to the Petitioner any extra/additional amount than what was being paid by them to the Petitioner, the Corporation de- recognised the Respondent No.6 School by its order dated 11th March 2011. Interestingly, though the said order of de-recognition was passed at the instance of the Petitioner herself, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 1253 of 2011 inter alia challenging the order passed by the Respondent No. 5, whereby the Respondent No.6 School is de-recognised. The Petitioner also sought an appointment of Administrator of the Respondent No.6 School. The said Writ Petition was dismissed since the Respondent No. 6 School was already de-recognised. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that the Respondent No.5 ought to have decided the issue as to whether the Respondent No. 6 School has paid the salary to the Petitioner as per the Code. Since he has not decided the said issue, the Respondent No. 5 has committed contempt of this Court. As stated hereinabove, the Respondent No. 6 appeared before the Educational Officer and admitted that they have indeed not paid to the Petitioner her salary as per the Code and that they do not have any monies to pay to the Petitioner and have accepted the consequence by way of de-recognition of the Respondent No.6 School. In view thereof, the question of the Respondent No. 5 having willfully breached the order of this Court dated 8th February 2010 thereby committing contempt of Court, as alleged, does not arise. 4 14.conp-66 The Contempt Petition is therefore dismissed. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]