The issue of applicability of Government Resolution and other directions issued by the State Government to a minority institution cannot be the subject matter of a Contempt Petition.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition is preferred alleging contempt of the judgment dtd. 9/7/2015, rendered by this Court (Coram : Shri A.S. Chandurkar, J), in Writ Petition 3089/2004.

2. Writ Petition 3089/2004 was preferred by Anjuman Hami - E - Islam, Sadar, Nagpur and Anjuman College of Engineering and Technology, Sadar, Nagpur, challenging the judgment dtd. 16/6/2004, rendered by the University and College Tribunal, Nagpur, whereby the appeal preferred by the contempt petitioner was allowed and she was granted the relief of reinstatement in service with continuity and back wages.

3. The operative part of the judgment in Writ Petition 3089/2004, reads thus:

(1) The judgment of the University and College Tribunal dtd. 16/6/2004 is confirmed.

(2) The amount of back-wages as directed by the College Tribunal shall be paid to the respondent No.1 with 6% interest per annum. The aforesaid amount shall be paid to the respondent No.1 within a period of four months from today.

(3) The respondent No.1 is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.60,000.00 with interest accrued thereon that was deposited by he petitioners pursuant to order dated 14-8- 2006.

(4) Rule stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. No costs.

4. The contempt petitioner preferred Contempt Petition 2/2017 alleging the contempt of the decision rendered by this Court of which, the operative part is reproduced supra. It would be extremely relevant to note certain observations and findings recorded by this Court (Coram : Shri Manish Pitale, J.). In paragraph 6, the observation is, the management appears to have calculated the back wages on the basis of unrevised pay scale till January 2004, and on the basis of revised pay scale from February 2004 onwards. It is then observed that such calculation appears to have been made in terms of the communication addressed to the concerned authority, which at that point of time had approved of the same. It is then recorded that the contempt petitioner is not able to dispute the fact that all the other employees of the institution were paid salaries as per the unrevised pay scale till January 2004 and on the basis of the revised pay scale from February 2004. This Court then observed that it would be difficult to accept the submission of the contempt petitioner that back wages ought to have been calculated on the basis of revised pay scale for the entire period for which the back wages were payable, and that by not doing so, the management had committed contempt.

This Court then observed that the question whether particular Government Resolution and the direction issued by the State from time to time would be applicable to the institution which is a minority institution, is a question which goes beyond the scope of contempt jurisdiction. After recording the opinion that the management has shown substantial compliance with the direction issued by this Court, this Court found no substance in the contempt petition, and accordingly, dismissed the Contempt Petition as is discernible from paragraph 9 of the judgment. In paragraph 10 of the judgment, this Court made it clear that if the contempt petitioner intends to agitate any dispute as regards the entitlement to applicability of specific pay scale, she may do so by instituting appropriate proceedings, which shall be decided in accordance with law.

It is clearly manifest from the judgment dtd. 6/11/2019, rendered in Contempt Petition 2/2017 that this Court recorded a categorical finding that the issue of applicability of Government Resolution and other direction issued by the State Government, to minority institution, cannot be the subject matter of Contempt Petition. It is equally clear that this Court did not find any substance in the Contempt Petition, which was accordingly dismissed, leaving it open to the contempt petitioner to agitate the dispute as regards the applicability of the Government Resolution and direction referred to supra by instituting appropriate proceedings.

5. The learned counsel for