13-CP-544-2021.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 13 CONT. PETITION NO. 544 OF 2021 IN WP/420/2018 SUDHIR BABANRAO DESHMUKH AND OTHERS VERSUS EKNATH MACCHINDRA JADHAV AND OTHERS .… Mr. Vivek Dhage, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. C. K. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for Respondent No.4 .… CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATE : 13.10.2025 PER COURT :- 1. Shri Dhage, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the termination of the petitioner was set aside by the learned School Tribunal and the said order was taken up before this Court vide two different writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition No.420 of 2018 and 337 of 2018. He would submit that before the case of transfer of the management, one writ petition was filed by the earlier management, whereas the another writ petition was filed by the subsequent management. Shri Dhage, the learned 1 of 5 2025:BHC-AUG:28946-DB (( 2 )) 13-CP-544-2021 counsel would submit that Writ petition No.420 of 2018 was filed by the subsequent management and they were occurred the compromise in between the subsequent management and the petitioner, on 06.09.2019. Shri Dhage, the learned counsel would point out that the compromise was recorded by this Court and accordingly the petition stood dispose of. He would submit that, in view of the compromise, the petitioner was, in fact, reinstated, but was found surplus, and hence salary was not paid. He would further submit that, subsequently due to Covid-19 period, the school was also closed down and after the bans imposed due to impact of Covid-19 were lifted, he had been to the management, but the management denied him to resume the duties on the count that no post was available as the petitioner was already held to be surplus. Shri Dhage, the learned counsel would fairly submit that, subsequently, the petitioner has been absorbed in another school and as such, the only claim he would raise about back-wages for the period of Covid pandemic i.e. 06.09.2019 till the date of his absorption in another school i.e. 12.01.2024. He would submit that since the respondent management has not paid the back wages, the present Contempt Petition has been filed. 2 of 5 (( 3 )) 13-CP-544-2021 2. Shri Shinde, the learned counsel representing the management would rely upon the contents of the compromise terms which are reproduced as follows:- “(1) The petitioners No. 1 and 2 have agreed the respondent No.1 – Sudhir Babanrao Deshmukh to reinstate him in the school and accordingly, he has joined the services in the petitioner No.2 – school w.e.f. 5.9.2019 as Peon. (2) It is further agreed that, since there are only two sanctioned posts of Peons on which, two employees are already serving and their appointments have been duly approved by the Education Officer as permanent employees (Peons), the respondent No.1 – Sudhir Babanrao Deshmukh is a surplus employee (Peon) and as such, is required to be absorbed. The respondent No.1 – Sudhir has no objection for declaring him surplus in the petitioner No.2 – school. (3) The petitioners shall submit the proposal to the Education Officer for absorption of the respondent No.1 – Sudhir Deshmukh in any other school and for that purpose, he has no grievance nor he shall raise any grievance in future. The respondent No.1 – Sudhir Deshmukh shall not prosecute contempt petition No.229/2017 and it would be withdrawn by him unconditionally. The respondent No.1 further undertakes that, he shall withdraw contempt petition No.2/2019 on the file of School Tribunal, Aurangabad so also any such proceedings filed by him against the petitioners in any other court of law in relation to his employment. (4) The respondent No.1 – Sudhir Deshmukh shall not claim back wages from the petitioners and has accordingly waived his claim to that extent.” 3 of 5 (( 4 )) 13-CP-544-2021 3. Shri Shinde, the learned counsel would also rely on Clause-3 of the order issued by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar on 08.01.2024, which is reproduced as follows:- “3. T;k ’kkGsr laca/khr vfrfjDr lsodkps lek;kstu dj.;kr vkysys vkgs R;k ’kkGsrhy eq[;k/;kidkauh laca/khr lsodkl rkRdkG :tw d:u ?;kos o R;kaps ukao ykHkkFkZ iz.kkyhe/;s lekfo"V djkos o lek;ksftr lsodkps osru lek;ksftr ’kkGsP;k vLFkkiuso:u vnk dj.;kr ;kos.” 4. In view of the clear terms of compromise, which is a part of record now, in my view, the petitioner cannot maintain claim of contempt against the respondent management for the reason that it was an admitted fact that he was a surplus employee. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner has undertaken that he shall not claim back wages from the management and has waived his claim to that extent. Although Shri Dhage, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this undertaking was only till his claim i.e. 05.09.2019, I don't see any willful contempt or willful disobedience on the part of the respondent management in not paying the back wages to the petitioner as is claimed by him. 5. In view of this, I record that in my considered view, no case for contempt is made out by the petitioner. 4 of 5 (( 5 )) 13-CP-544-2021 6. Shri Dhage, the learned counsel, submits that the petitioner be permitted to initiate appropriate proceedings to claim the back wages, as pointed out in the present contempt petition. 7. Needless to mention, the petitioner may take any proceeding as is permissible in law to recover the back wages by establishing his claim for such back wages on its own merits. 8. In view of this, the contempt petition stands dismissed. [ AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ] SMS 5 of 5