cp151.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 151 OF 2011 Shri Sandip Hiralal Natke .. PETITIONER VERSUS The Secretary & others .. RESPONDENTS Miss. Surekha P. Mahajan, advocate for the petitioner. ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 13 th APRIL, 2011. PER COURT : 1 Petitioner is alleging intentional breach of the order passed by this court on 26-11-2009. Paragraph no. 8 of the order which contains direction reads thus : 8 In the light of the facts stated above, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the school tribunal in respect of reinstatement of the employee i.e. respondent herein needs to be complied with by the management and same need not be stayed. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the employee has approached the tribunal at belated stage and after about 5 years from the date of issuance of the order of termination, it would not be desirable to burden the management with the cp151.11 2 financial liability of paying backwages to the employee. Order passed by the school tribunal directing the management to pay 50% of the backwages shall stand stayed. 2 My attention is invited to the order passed on 6-9-2010 by the Deputy Director of Vocational Education. It is recorded in the order that the contempt petitioner is permitted to resume the duties since 5-4-2010 and his services have been approved temporarily. Approval of services as well as permission to resume the dues is in pursuance of orders passed in Contempt Petition no. 20/2010 dated 1-4-2010 and 6-4-2010. Grievance is made that this court has only directed stay to the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nasik, only in respect of payment of 50% of the backwages. It is contended that while issuing the order by respondent direction in respect of continuity in service has not been incorporated in the order and as such there is breach of the order passed by this court. 3 It is to be noted that the decision rendered by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nasik on 9-1-2010 is subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition no. 1956/2009. Said writ petition is already admitted and pending for final disposal. All the questions raised in the petition as well as legality of the cp151.11 3 final order passed by the Presiding Officer of the school tribunal shall have to be determined at the stage of final disposal of the writ petition. So far as the aspect of continuity of services of the employee is concerned, the same also would be subject to final result of the petition. The order issued by the Deputy Director is concerned, the same is in conformity with the directions issued by this court and there does not appear to be intentional breach of any direction issued by this court. Contempt petition is devoid of substance hence stands rejected. 4 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb