IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 24/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4111/2008 (Sharad Shankarrao Ranotkar vrs. Shri Dhyaneshwar Pundlik Raut and others) ................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................... Shri A.D.Mohgaonkar, counsel for applicant Shri G.R.Sadar, counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 , ... CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 22nd NOVEMBER, 2010. 1] This contempt petition complains about willful disobedience/breach of the judgment and order dated 27th January, 2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4111/2008. The relevant portion of the order of which the complaint is complained of is reproduced below. “Hence, we dispose of the petition with direction to the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to pay salary to the petitioner for the period from May 2002 to November 2007, if the petitioner has factually discharged the duties of the Assistant Teacher, at the earliest. 2) The claim of the petitioner is that his total arrears of salary for the period for which he has actually worked from May, 2002 to November, 2007, comes to Rs.6,79,734/-. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been paid an amount of Rs.4,50,000/-, and out of the balance amount of Rs.2,29,734/-, the outstanding loan amount of Rs.1,11,910/- has been deducted by the respondent nos. 1 and 2. The dispute is, therefore, in respect of payment of Rs.1,17,824/-, which according to the petitioner has not been paid. 3] The stand of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 is that the said amount is not paid to the petitioner as it pertains to the period of vacation. Thus, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are disputing the entitlement of the petitioner to the amount of Rs.1,17,824/-. 4] Perusal of the order passed by this Court, which is reproduced above, shows that the direction is given to pay salary to the petitioner for the period from May, 2002 to November, 2007, if the petitioner has factually discharged the duties of the Assistant Teacher. According to the management, there would be no question of discharging duties by the petitioner during the period of vacation and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to get the salary. 5] Shri Mohgaonkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the provisions of Rule 13(2) of the M.E.P.S.Rules and according to him, the said rule entitles the petitioner to get the salary for the period of vacation if he had served for a major part of the respective term. Thus, the question which is required to be determined is about entitlement of the petitioner to vacation salary in terms of Rule 13(2) of the M.E.P.S. Rules. Such an adjudication has not been made in Writ Petition No. 4111/2008 decided by the Division Bench on 27th January, 2009. In view of this, it cannot be said that there is a breach or disobedience of willful nature of the order passed by this Court by respondent nos. 1 and 2. 6] In the result, the petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to establish his entitlement to vacation salary by filing appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and the dismissal of the present contempt petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner to claim such arrears. JUDGE Rvjalit