Bombay High Court
Ku. Nazma Begam D/O Jameel Ahmed vs Shri Ramesh Dube, Secretary, ... on 16 September, 2021
Bench: S. M. Modak
5.CP.95.2021. 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Contempt Petition No.95/2021
Ku. Nazma Begam d/o Jameel Ahmed Vs. Shri Ramesh Dube
*******************************************************************************************************************
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
*******************************************************************************************************************
Shri P.N. Shende, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. Nidhi, Advocate h/f Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J.
DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2021.
Heard both the learned Advocates for the parties.
02] As directed by the learned School Tribunal on 29th
August, 2018, the petitioner was reinstated. He also worked with
respondent No.1 as Assistant Teacher for one month, however, the
post was abolished. He was absorbed in Municipal Council School,
Kamthee as per the direction given by this Court on 23 rd January,
2019 in Writ Petition No.401/2019. The proposal for absorption was
sent by respondent No.2. The order of School Tribunal was
challenged by the respondents by way of Writ Petition No.401/2019.
The order of back wages was stayed by the writ Court as per the
order dated 23rd January, 2019 until further orders.
03] The issue of payment of salary for one month was
entertained by the writ Court as it is clear from the orders dated 7 th
December, 2020 and 21st December, 2020. The management paid
Rs.36,111/- to the petitioner. So also, the School has submitted the
salary bill. The petitioner admits about receipt of Rs.36,111/-. So
also, the amount released as per the salary bill.
5.CP.95.2021. 2/3
04] Now the issue in this contempt petition is about payment
of back wages. The respondent No.1 has taken number of objections
including maintainability of this contempt petition. It is on the basis
of the two judgments delivered by this Court, which is referred in
paragraphs 16 and 17 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent.
So also, the respondent submitted that the petitioner is not entitled
for back wages as there was an oral understanding before the School
Tribunal as well as before the writ Court. The petitioner has clarified
that before the School Tribunal he was ready to relinquish the claim
for back wages, if he could have been reinstated. However, according
to the petitioner, the respondent was not ready and hence the
compromise was not materialized.
05] According to the respondent, when the writ Court has
disposed of the writ petition on 15th January, 2021 (as the petitioner
therein intends to withdraw that petition), there was a direction to
dispose of all pending civil applications. At that time, Civil Application
No.2980/2019 filed by the present petitioner for certain interim relief
was pending. According to the respondent, at that time, also there
was an oral understanding with present petitioner that he will not
claim the back wages.
06] It is no doubt true that so far as the issue of back wages is
concerned, there is no reference in the order dated 15 th January, 2021
or in the earlier orders passed by the writ Court (except in the order
dated 23rd January, 2019). So, this is a disputed question whether
there was an oral understanding or not?
07] This Court will certainly decide all contentious issues
including the objection as to maintainability of the petition. However,
5.CP.95.2021. 3/3
this Court feels that the matter needs to be sent to mediator in order
to avail the possibility of settlement, if any. Both the learned
Advocates seek time to take necessary instructions.
08] Hence, the matter be kept on 1st October, 2021. Both the
parties are at liberty to show their unreadiness to go for medication.
In that eventuality, the Court will decide the matter on merits.
JUDGE
vijay
