The main legal point established in the judgment is that compliance with the court's direction, even if delayed, can prevent a finding of contempt. Additionally, the court clarified the scope of a contempt petition and the types of claims that fall outside its purview.

JUDGMENT

Sandipkumar C. More, J. - The petitioner, who is party-in-person, has fled this petition under Section 12 of Contempt of Court Act in respect of alleged contempt order dated 24/03/2022 in her earlier Writ Petition No.502 of 2021 thereby asking for various reliefs as prayed in this petition.

2. On perusal of the prayers of this contempt petition, it appears that the petitioner has claimed various reliefs namely monitory reliefs as claimed in prayer clause-B and penal actions to be taken against the present respondents / contemptners and others such as fling criminal prosecution against them and their termination from service and also recovery of salary for a certain period of one Mr. Dr. Shriniwas Sonwane.

3. The petitioner herself submits that the respondents / contemptners did not act as per the direction given by this court under order dated 24/03/2022 in Writ Petition No.502 of 2021 and therefore, they must be held in contempt.

4. On the contrary, the learned AGP on behalf of respondents-State strongly opposed the petition by fling an affdavit in reply dated 17/10/2022 and submitted that the direction of this court under the aforesaid order dated 24/03/2022 is already fulflled and therefore, there is no scope left for the petitioner to fle such contempt petition. He also pointed out that due to certain contingencies the direction of this court was not complied within the stipulated period and he also submitted his apology on behalf of the respondents / contemptners for the same.

5. Heard rival submissions. Also perused entire documents on record.

6. It is extremely important to note that under the order dated 24/03/2022, this court had directed the Chief Executive Offcer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad to decide the representation of present petitioner, if preferred on or before 30/04/2022, till 15/06/2022. The perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that the petitioner had challenged the order dated 12/02/2018 in the Writ Petition No.502 of 2021, which was delivered by Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, whereby her punishment of termination from service was reduced to stoppage of one increment temporarily. This court under order dated 07/11/2019 did not fnd any fault in the order dated 12/02/2018 and therefore, dismissed the Writ Petition No.8185 of 2018 fled by present respondent No.3. Thus, it appears that the order dated 12/02/2018 delivered by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad remained as it is. It further appears that in Writ Petition No. 502 of 2021 while dismissing the same, this Court had passed direction to the Chief Executive Offcer, Zilla Parishad as mentioned above since the present petitioner made grievance that she was not paid her salary for a period of 5 months and 6 days i.e. from 10/03/2015 till 16/08/2015. Thus, it appears that under the order dated 24/03/2022 there was direction to the Chief Executive Offcer, Zilla Parishad only to decide representation of the petitioner on or before 15/06/2022, which was allowed to fle on or before 30/04/2022.

7. The documents submitted by the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 Dr. Sudhakar Shelke annexed to the affdavit in reply, clearly indicate that the petitioner as per the order dated 24/03/2022 had submitted representation to respondent No.3 on 11/04/2022. Thereafter, respondent No.3 had called explanation from the concerned Medical Offcer, PHC, Banoti, Taluka : Soygaon, District : Aurangabad. Thereafter, the said Medical Offcer, submitted his explanation dated 04/08/2022 accompanied with all the necessary documents. It further appears that after considering the record submitted by the said Medical Offcer, respondent No.3 came to the conclusion that the petitioner remained absent during the period from 09/03/2015 to 16/08/2015 i.e. for almost 159 days without any reason and therefore, rejected the claim of the petitioner in respect of her salary and allowances for that period. Further, it appears that respondent No.3 had passed the