Bombay High Court
Sayeeda Bano Ramzan Khan vs Mohd. Raffique Sheikh Idu And Others on 28 January, 2019
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
1 CP408-16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Contempt Petition No.408 of 2016
in
Writ Petition No. 3128 of 2016.
(Sayeeda Bano Ramzan Khan .vs. Mohd. Raffique Sheikh Idu and ors. )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's orders
Smt. Smita Dashputre, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. M.R. Joharapurkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 & 5.
Mr. P.S. Raut, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr. K.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for Respondent No.4.
CORAM : Manish Pitale, J.
DATED : January 28, 2019.
At the out set, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 that the said respondent needs to be discharged from the present contempt petition, for the reason that when the impugned order dated 28.10.2015 was passed in favour of the petitioner herein, the said respondent had already retired from the post of Headmaster of the School on 14.08.2014. It is further pointed out that the respondent no.5 in this petition was the in-charge Headmaster at the time when the impugned order dated 28.10.2015 was passed by the School Tribunal.
2. These facts are not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the other respondents. Hence the case for discharge of respondent no.2 is clearly made out. Accordingly, respondent no.2 is discharged from the proceedings in this contempt petition.
3. The instant contempt petition is filed by the ::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2019 01:57:58 ::: 2 CP408-16.odt petitioner (respondent no.1 in Writ Petition No.3128 of 2016) claiming that the respondents herein have committed willful contempt of the judgment and order dated 28.10.2015 passed by the School Tribunal, Amravati.
4. The orders passed in Writ Petition No. 3128 of 2016, wherein the Management and the Headmaster of the School have challenged the impugned order of the School Tribunal, show that interim stay of the order of the Tribunal was granted by this Court on 23.04.2018 on the condition that the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3128 of 2016 i.e. the Management and the Headmaster would deposit 50 % of the amount of back-wages in this Court.
5. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3128 of 2016 failed to deposit the said amount, as a consequence of which on 20.08.2018 while granting Rule, this Court vacated the conditional interim order dated 23.04.2018 granted in favour of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3128 of 2016 and a direction was given to them to deposit the entire back-wages in this Court within eight weeks. The said order was made subject matter of challenge by the petitioners by filing S.L.P. No. 26830 of 2018 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On 26.10.2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, however, the said petitioners were granted a further period of three months from the date of the order to deposit the amount in terms of conditional order dated 23.04.2018 passed by this Court. It was made clear by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there shall be no further extension of time.
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2019 01:57:58 :::3 CP408-16.odt
6. The aforesaid extended time granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court admittedly expired on 23.01.2019 and it has come on record that the respondent nos.1 and 5 herein i.e. the persons representing the Management and the School have deposited only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the contempt petition, the entire back-wages come to about Rs.10,00,000/-. This is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 5 and it is stated that the total amount of back-wages comes to about Rs.8,00,000/-. Even if the total amount of back- wages as claimed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 5 herein is taken as the correct figure, 50 % of the said amount comes to Rs.4,00,000/-. Having deposited only Rs.1,00,000/-, respondent Nos. 1 and 5 are clearly in contempt as they have failed to deposit 50% of the back-wages. The balance amount, even according to respondent Nos. 1 and 5, would be Rs.3,00,000/-. Therefore, as a matter of last chance, the respondent Nos. 1 and 5 are directed to deposit the aforesaid balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on or before 08.02.2019. It is made clear that no further extension shall be granted by this Court.
7. The petitioner is granted liberty to place on record calculation to demonstrate the figure of total amount of back-wages as calculated by her, by filing an affidavit before the said date. Hence list for further consideration on 11.02.2019.
JUDGE halwai ::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2019 01:57:58 :::