1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 85/2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2514/2008 Yeshwant Bhomaji Shambharkar .versus. Shri Anil Javhare and another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Cou rt's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.N.Shende, counsel for appellant Shri A.Ahirrao, counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2. CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 25 th AUGUST, 2010 1] This contempt complains about willful disobedience of the direction given by this Court on 23.09.2008 in Writ Petition No. 2514/2008. The complaint is that, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have failed to implement the direction issued by the Deputy Director of Education vide communication dated 16.11.2002. Such direction is contained in last part of the order dated 23rd September, 2008, which is reproduced below. 2 “..... In the circumstances, we dispose of present petition with a direction to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to implement the directions issued by the Deputy Director of Education vide communication dated 16.11.2002, if there is no other legal impediment in doing so, at the earliest.” 2] The submissions are filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, stating in para 4 that there were legal impediments in implementing the direction given by the Deputy Director of Education vide its communication dated 16.11.2002 and this has been informed to the Deputy Director of Education, who has closed the matter. The submission in short is that, the order dated 16.11.2002 passed by the Deputy Director of Education is no longer in operation and hence cannot be executed or enforced. 3] The annual increments of the petitioner were withheld for the period 2001 to 2004. By communication dated 16th November, 2002, the Deputy Director of Education directed the management to 3 release the said increments. However, since the increments were not released, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2514/2008, in which the directions as are reproduced above were issued. 4] After going through the order dated 23rd September, 2008, it is apparent that this Court has not adjudicated upon the legality of the communication dated 16.11.2002 issued by the Deputy Director of Education. This Court has merely directed the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to implement the said direction if there is no other legal impediment in doing so. The respondents have come before this Court pointing out that there are legal impediments in releasing the increments of the petitioner for the period 2001 to 2004. Whether the Deputy Director of Education has filed the case of the petitioner cannot be gone into in the contempt jurisdiction. The fact, however, remains that respondent nos. 1 and 2 have come to this Court pointing 4 out that they have informed to the Deputy Director of Education that there are other legal impediments which are stated in the affidavit filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 in this contempt petition. The legality or justification for not releasing the increments cannot be gone into in this contempt petition. 5] There is no substance in the contempt petition. The same is dismissed. JUDGE Rvjalit