JUDGMENT
A.H.J. Joshi, J.
1. In Writ Petition No. 6097 of 2004, this Court passed an order as follows:
7) For the reasons stated herein above, the impugned order dated 11.11.2004 is hereby quashed and set aside and he Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to verify the caste claim of the petitioner as per the direction issued in this Judgment.
[quoted from page 18 of the paper-book of Contempt Petition].
2. This Court also recorded the grievance of the petitioner about non-payment of salary. In that regard, this Court recorded as follows:
6) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also made grievance about non-payment of salary to the petitioner. However, it will be appropriate for the petitioner to make a representation in this regard to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who shall decide the same on its own merits according to law at the earliest.
[quoted from page 18 of the paper-book of Contempt Petition].
3. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as a Laboratory Assistant in the respondent-Institution in 1999. He claims confirmation in employment in view of passage of time. In the language of petitioner as found in Para 1 of the Contempt Petition, the termination was a product of:
1. …The petitioner came to be terminated as the petitioner because of reasons beyond his control failed to submit the documents before the respondent for the purpose of caste verification towards Halba Scheduled Tribe….
[quoted from page 2 of the paper-book of Contempt Petition].
4. This Court found that the petitioner should be given a chance to get his tribe claim verified and to protect his employment and hence set aside the termination order, nevertheless Court did not direct the normal consequence of reinstatement, i.e. payment of salary and allowances prior to termination or during termination. Instead Court ordered what is quoted above in para 6 of the Judgment which is quoted above in para 2.
5. It is seen that after the Judgment of this Court, petitioner submitted representations on 16th September, 2005 and 11th October, 2005, and claimed that he should be paid unpaid salary. He also made a representation to the Higher Education Department on 5 th November, 2005.
According to the petitioner, failure of the respondents to pay the salary is contempt of order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 6097 of 2004 on 25th July, 2005. As a consequential relief, petitioner has prayed in Prayer Clause (B) as follows:
(B) direct the respondent No. 1 to 3 to pay regular salary of the petitioner and further direct the respondents to pay arrears of salary/unpaid salary of the petitioner since March, 2004 within a stipulated time;
[quoted from page 9 of the paperbook of Contempt Petition].
6. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Parsodkar for the petitioner, learned Advocate Mr. N.S. Khandewale for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and J.B. Jaiswal, learned Assistant Govt. Pleader, for respondent No. 3.
7. This Court finds that though this Court has granted relief in Writ Petition No. 6097 of 2004, it is because this Court found some latitude to be given to the petitioner.
8. In so far as the need of furnishing documents for scrutiny of caste of the petitioner was concerned, this Court, in no manner, found it to be a matter of excuse available to him. It is in this background, though this Court found that the petitioner needed to be granted some indulgence, also probably saw that it was not a case where wages during intervening period should be ordered, lest this Court would not have hesitated in passing order to that effect.
9. In the aforesaid background, this Court finds that it is not proper to draw an inference that back wages were ordered when this Court did not pass specific order thereto.
10. In so far as non-compliance as to direction of taking a decision is concerned, it seems that petitioner does not have any direct grievance in that regard, as he does not say that the failure to take a decision is a contempt. On the other hand, he seems to be convinced that the Management would not be solitarily able or responsible to pay the salary, because termination was not accountable to illegality, if any, committed by the Management, but was certainly on account of failure or alleged inability of the petitioner to furnish the documents which was his obligation under Govt. orders, but he had failed to comply without disclosing the grounds and reasons thereto.
11. The failure to take a decision on petitioner’s representation can be viewed as a non-compliance, yet failure to pay the salary is certainly not a matter of willful disobedience of order of this Court.
12. Thus, present is not a case where Management has deliberately avoided or omitted to take a decision. It is on record that the Principal of the respondent’s college has sought clear guidance from the Government in relation to taking of the decision as to payment of salary, as is apparent from Annexure-II of the Affidavit-in-Reply. Apprehensions of Management are stated in said letter seeking guidance and directions, in very eloquent language.
13. This Court finds that there are no grounds and reasons to take any action under the Contempt of Courts Act. Rule and notice discharged with cost.