Sanjay Bapurao Tayade, President ... vs Haribhau Bhilsingh Pawar (Courts ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8298 Bom

904-CPL-4-22                                                                                                                     1/5


                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                                 CONTEMPT APPEAL (CPL) NO.4 OF 2022
                                                  IN
                               SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION NO.01 OF 2022
                                                  IN
                                   CONTEMPT PETITION NO.116 OF 2020
                                                  IN
                                    WRIT PETITION NO.7165 OF 2019

  Sanjay Bapurao Tayade, President, Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Smarak Samiti, Murtizapur, Dist.
                                                        Akola and anr.
                                                                -vs-
                 Haribhau Bhilsingh Pawar, Assistant Teacher Murizapur, Akola and anr.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders                                     Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
                                   Shri Apurv De, Advocate for appellants.
                                   Ms S. S. Jachak, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.2.

                                   CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.

DATE : August 24, 2022

By this contempt appeal preferred by the Education Society as

well as the Headmistress of the school run by the Society the appellants

have raised a challenge to the order dated 03/08/2022 passed by the

learned Single Judge in Suo Motu Contempt Petition No.01/2022. By

said order, the appellants have been directed to deposit the amount of

back-wages in exercise of contempt jurisdiction.

2. The respondent No.1 was engaged on the post of Assistant

Teacher in the school run by the appellant Society. His services were

terminated by the order dated 05/05/2015. Against that order the

respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the School Tribunal. On 904-CPL-4-22 2/5

18/07/2019 the School Tribunal set aside the said termination. It

directed that the respondent No.1 shall be treated to have been placed

under suspension from 05/05/2015 and a liberty was granted to

conduct de-novo inquiry against him. The amount of subsistence

allowance was to be paid to the respondent No.1 within a period of

three months from the date of that order. The question of continuity in

service and payment of full back-wages was kept open subject to the

outcome of the inquiry. It was further directed that if the amount of

subsistence allowance was not paid within a period of three months as

directed, the respondent No.1 would be deemed to have been reinstated

in service with all consequential benefits.

3. The Management challenged the aforesaid decision of the School

Tribunal in Writ Petition No.7165/2019. This Court on 17/02/2020

modified the order passed by the School Tribunal and directed payment

of subsistence allowance within a period of three months from the date

of the order passed in writ petition. It was observed that if that

direction was not complied with, clause (7) of the directions issued by

the School Tribunal would operate. It appears that the Management

did not comply with the aforesaid directions and hence the respondent

No.1 filed Contempt Petition No.116/2020. While disposing of the

contempt petition, the learned Single Judge directed the Management 904-CPL-4-22 3/5

to pay regular salary to the petitioner from 17/05/2020 within period of

six weeks. The current salary was also directed to be paid with liberty

to approach the Education Officer for seeking reimbursement of that

amount. Insofar as compliance of clause No.7 pertaining to

reinstatement and back-wages is concerned it has been observed in

paragraph 10 as under :

" 10.... As regards the payment due to the petitioner in pursuance of Clause No.7 of the order of the Tribunal pertaining to consequential benefits and entire salary with effect from the date of termination till 17/05/2020, the respondent No.1 shall move an appropriate application for aid before the respondent No.3 Education Officer, since the institution in question is 100% grant- in-aid. Such an application by the respondent No.1 for the aforesaid grant and also for grant towards payment of current salary and future salary to the petitioner shall be submitted before the respondent No.3, within a period of two weeks from today. The respondent No.3 Education Officer shall decide the said application to be moved by he respondent No.1 within a period of six weeks from the receipt of such an application, in accordance with law."

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid liberty as granted to approach the

Education Officer, the Management on 15/10/2020 moved the

Education Officer. On 20/10/2020 the Education Officer directed the

Management to pay the aforesaid amount of back-wages. The present

appellants being aggrieved by that order have challenged that order in

Writ Petition No.3331/2021. It is stated that this writ petition is still 904-CPL-4-22 4/5

pending.

5. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned

Single Judge in exercise of contempt jurisdiction has proceeded on the

basis that the respondent No.1 was entitled to benefit of clause-7 of the

judgment of the School Tribunal. The amount of back-wages of

Rs.37,28,036/- which was due and payable was not paid by the

Management and therefore it was directed to pay that amount within

period of three weeks from 03/08/2022. It is submitted that since the

Management was permitted to make an application to the Education

Officer seeking reimbursement by the order dated 09/10/2020 and

such application having been thereafter rejected by the Education

Officer on 28/10/2020, the outcome of the challenge raised to that

order in Writ Petition No.3331/2021 ought to be awaited.

6. Prima facie, on perusal of various orders passed and especially

the observations in paragraph 10 of the order passed in Contempt

Petition No.116/2020 that has reproduced herein above, it becomes

clear that insofar as back-wages are concerned, the Management was

directed to move an application seeking release of that amount by the

Education Officer since the institution was receiving 100% grant. It is

true that this request has been rejected on 28/10/2020 by the

Education Officer and that order is the subject matter of challenge in 904-CPL-4-22 5/5

Writ Petition No.3331/2021 which is pending.

7. Considering the fact that the order dated 28/10/2020 passed by

the Education Officer (Secondary) is the subject matter of challenge in

Writ Petition No.3331/2021, we are inclined to grant time of fifteen

days to the appellants to seek appropriate orders in the aforesaid writ

petition.

Issue notice, returnable in three weeks.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives notice for

respondent No.2.

Civil Application (CAO) No.647/2022

Issue notice, returnable in three weeks.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives notice for non- applicant No.2.

For the reasons stated in the order issuing notice in the contempt appeal, by an ad-interim order passed it is directed that for a period of two weeks from today, the direction issued to the appellants/applicants to deposit amount of Rs.37,28,036/- shall remain in abeyance.

The appellants shall remain present on 29/08/2022 as directed in the Contempt Petition.

Humdast granted.

(Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.) (A. S. Chandurkar, J.) Digitally signed byASMITA ADWAIT BHANDAKKAR Asmita Signing Date:25.08.2022 19:12:11