1 914 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 398 OF 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 914 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 398 OF 2013 IN WP/2897/2013 LAXMAN RAJARAM MORE VERSUS NIRMALA GURUBALAPPA HUTGI AND ANOTHER ….. Adv. S. S. Jadhavar, Advocate for the Petitioner Adv. N. B. Patil, AGP for Respondents-State Adv. Ganesh Kedar h/f Adv. A. M. Karad, Advocate for Respondents ….. CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. DATED : 27/08/2026 Per Court: . Heard. 2. In the order under contempt the only interim relief in terms of amendment to prayer clause (C-1) was granted, which states that during the pendency of the main Writ Petition No. 2897 of 2013, the petitioner should not be discontinued by terminating his services. Thereafter, the said Writ Petition No. 2897 of 2013 was disposed of finally by this Court, vide order dated 14.02.2014 by directing the petitioner to approach before the concerned School Tribunal for challenging the order of his termination. 2026:BHC-AUG:38855-DB 2 914 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 398 OF 2013 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the School Tribunal had set aside the order of termination of the petitioner, the respondent management had reinstated the petitioner on 27.01.2014 i.e. after seven months of his termination. Thus, he has raised a grievance that petitioner was not paid for the period till his reinstatement. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, management should have been reinstated the petitioner from the date of his termination i.e. 21.05.2013. 4. However, it is to be noted that prior to disposal of the proceeding before the School Tribunal, the respondent management had already reinstated the petitioner. If the petitioner claims that he should have been reinstated from 21.05.2013, then he must take appropriate proceedings as permissible under law to raise such grievance. The order under contempt in this petition was only limited to a period of ten weeks from 14.02.2014. It is also suggested to the petitioner that if the School Tribunal had passed an order of his reinstatement from 21.05.2013, then also the petitioner would have an opportunity to file a fresh contempt petition in view of final order of School Tribunal, from effective date i.e. 21.05.2013. 3 914 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 398 OF 2013 5. Therefore, in view of the same, nothing survives in this petition and it stands disposed of. 6. It is made clear that if the petitioner is aggrieved in respect of his actual date of reinstatement, then he may take out appropriate proceedings as permissible under law. ( VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. ) shivani/