1. Heard Shri Anjan De, Advocate, for the petitioner, Shri Suresh Dhole, Advocate, for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Shri P.D. Kothari, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition against the respondent for taking action under Section 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The reliefs claimed by the petitioner in this petition are thus -

i. take action against the respondents 1 to 4 under the Contempt of Courts Act and punish the contemnors in accordance with the provisions of law; in W.P. No. 3254/07, Order dated 28/9/07

ii. direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner immediately and pay all the back wages forthwith to the petitioner;

iii. by an interim order direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and pay the back wages to the petitioner immediately during the pendency of the petition;

iv. grant any other relief deemed fit

3. The petition arose out of the proceedings of appeal initiated by the petitioner in Appeal No. 43/03 before Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati. The petitioner was terminated by Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 by the order dated 23.6.2003 from the post of Assistant Teacher. She filed the appeal claiming reinstatement in service with back-wages, continuity in service and other benefits.

4. After hearing the parties, the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, held that the termination of the appellant was illegal and void. He, therefore, quashed the same. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated within 30 days from the date of judgment of the School Tribunal. The respondents were further directed to record the absence of the petitioner as a period of continuity in service. She was also awarded back-wages payable within 60 days from the date of judgment. It is necessary to mention that the copy of that order was directed to be sent to the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal, for information and necessary action. This order was passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati, on 20.6.2007.

5. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 took exception to this order in Writ Petition 3454/07 before this Court. By the judgment dated 28.9.2007, the learned Single Judge of this Court partly allowed the said petition. Following are the important observations in the said oder, which are noted thus-

........

6. In the result, writ petition is partly allowed, Upon the concession made by respondent no.2, the Order awarding back wages is quashed and set aside. If the respondent no.2 is not reinstated by the petitioners within 8 weeks from today, the order made on the concessions given by the respondent no. 2 regarding back wages shall stand recalled and respondent no.2 shall be entitled to execute the Order of award of back wages.

6. The respondents again challenged that order before the Division Bench of this Court by filing L.P.A. No. 366/2007. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said appeal with the following observations by the order dated 31st January, 2008.

....

2. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that, respondent no. 2 applied for being appointed on honourary basis on 21-06-2002 and that from April, 2003 she did not report to duty. However, the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, after perusing the documents maintained by the appellants, came to the conclusion that, respondent no. 2 was appointed on 19-07-95 in a clear permanent vacancy and she continued to discharge the duties of the Assistant Teacher at least till April, 2003. The School Tribunal held that, Oral Termination of respondent no. 2 is illegal. This finding of the School Tribunal was confirmed by the learned Single Judge. In view of the concurrent findings, we see no reason to interfere.

Thus, in terms of the order of this Court in Writ Petition, the order of the School Tribunal was confirmed.

7. By alleging that the respondents did not comply with the relevant order and c