1 / 3 25.cp215.2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 215 OF 2021 SHRI GAUTAM S/O VISHVANATH DIGHORE VS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD, BHANDARA AND OTHERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Ganesh Barange, Advocate h/f Mr. G.G. Bade, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. C.A. Lokhande, AGP for respondent/State. Mr. G. G. Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 09.10.2026 Heard Mr. Barange, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4. 2. The operative part of the judgment of the learned School Tribunal, Nagpur, in Appeal No.83/2019, which is reproduced as under : “1. Appeal is allowed. 2. The compulsory retirement order dated 27/07/2018 w.e.f. 31/07/2018 is hereby quashed and set aside vide Section 11 (2) of the MEPS Act. 3. The respondent No.3 and 4 are hereby directed to reinstate the appellant in service along with continuity and full back wages, within 30 days from the date of this order vide Section 11 (2) (a) Prity 2 / 3 25.cp215.2021 of the MEPS Act. 4. The Government of Maharashtra is recommended vide Section 11 (3) of the MEPS Act, 1977 that if the respondents failed to comply with the above order the emoluments to be paid to appellant till he reinstated in service shall be deducted from the grant due and payable or that may become due and payable in future to the Management and it be paid to appellant directly. 5. Dictated on computer and pronounced in open Court.” 3. It is this order of which contempt is alleged. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 has points me out the affidavit- in-reply filed as also a communication dated 16.09.2026 to state that he has already intimated to the authority concerned i.e. the Education Officer (Secondary), that the present management is unable to comply with the order. Therefore, as per clause (4), till the present contempt petitioner is reinstated, the emoluments shall be paid from the grant due and payable. 5. He also draws my attention to the judgment of this Court in Vilas Shankarrao Deshmukh and anr. Vs. S.A. Ghode, Principal Navprabhat Vidya Mandir and Junior College, Thanegaon and Ors., reported in 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. Prity 3 / 3 25.cp215.2021 261, and more particularly, paragraph 10 and 11 thereof. Wherein this Court has held that such a course is permissible and has further went on to hold that in case of ‘non-salary grant’, the authority should immediately inform the employee concerned the steps which it proposes to take in the matter and within a reasonable time. It further holds that in the event of the case ‘non-salary grant’ due and payable to the school in question are insufficient, the authority shall pay the amount which is immediately due and payable and the balance amount be paid in the following period when the grants become due and payable. This process may continue till that period the direction issued by the School Tribunal, is fully complied with. 6. In light of the said dicta of this Court and the communication placed on record, I do not find there is any contempt. 7. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner makes an attempt to state that the said letter is highly belated, this would not be a matter of adjudication in contempt. The contempt petition is, therefore, stands rejected. [ NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. ] Prity Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 12/10/2026 18:31:07