Bombay High Court
LAXMAN RAJARAM MOREversusNIRMALA GURUBALAPPA HUTGI AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that nothing survives in the contempt petition and it is disposed of.
Summary
The Court considered a contempt petition filed by Laxman Rajaram More, seeking enforcement of an interim order that barred his termination during the pendency of Writ Petition No. 2897 of 2013. The petitioner alleged that, although the School Tribunal set aside his termination, the respondent management reinstated him only on 27 January 2014, seven months after his dismissal, and he claimed entitlement to back wages from the date of termination (21 May 2013). The Court noted that the management had already reinstated the petitioner before the School Tribunal’s final order and that the contempt order was limited to a ten‑week period from 14 February 2014. It held that the petitioner must pursue any grievance regarding the actual date of reinstatement through appropriate legal proceedings, not through the present contempt petition. Consequently, the Court disposed of the contempt petition, stating that nothing survives in it.
Issues considered
- Whether the contempt petition remains maintainable after the petitioner was reinstated by the respondent prior to the School Tribunal's order.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to back wages for the period between his termination and reinstatement.
- Whether a fresh contempt petition can be filed based on the School Tribunal's order.
Subjects
- contempt
- reinstatement
- termination
- School Tribunal
- writ petition
- interim relief
- back wages
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:38855-DB
1 914 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 398 OF 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
914 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 398 OF 2013
IN WP/2897/2013
LAXMAN RAJARAM MORE
VERSUS
NIRMALA GURUBALAPPA HUTGI AND ANOTHER
…..
Adv. S. S. Jadhavar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Adv. N. B. Patil, AGP for Respondents-State
Adv. Ganesh Kedar h/f Adv. A. M. Karad, Advocate for Respondents
…..
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
DATED : 27/08/2026
Per Court:
. Heard.
2. In the order under contempt the only interim relief in terms of
amendment to prayer clause (C-1) was granted, which states that
during the pendency of the main Writ Petition No. 2897 of 2013,
the petitioner should not be discontinued by terminating his
services. Thereafter, the said Writ Petition No. 2897 of 2013 was
disposed of finally by this Court, vide order dated 14.02.2014 by
directing the petitioner to approach before the concerned School
Tribunal for challenging the order of his termination.
2 914 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 398 OF 2013
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though
the School Tribunal had set aside the order of termination of the
petitioner, the respondent management had reinstated the
petitioner on 27.01.2014 i.e. after seven months of his termination.
Thus, he has raised a grievance that petitioner was not paid for the
period till his reinstatement. According to the learned counsel for
the petitioner, management should have been reinstated the
petitioner from the date of his termination i.e. 21.05.2013.
4. However, it is to be noted that prior to disposal of the
proceeding before the School Tribunal, the respondent
management had already reinstated the petitioner. If the petitioner
claims that he should have been reinstated from 21.05.2013, then
he must take appropriate proceedings as permissible under law to
raise such grievance. The order under contempt in this petition was
only limited to a period of ten weeks from 14.02.2014. It is also
suggested to the petitioner that if the School Tribunal had passed
an order of his reinstatement from 21.05.2013, then also the
petitioner would have an opportunity to file a fresh contempt
petition in view of final order of School Tribunal, from effective date
i.e. 21.05.2013.
3 914 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 398 OF 2013
5. Therefore, in view of the same, nothing survives in this
petition and it stands disposed of.
6. It is made clear that if the petitioner is aggrieved in respect of
his actual date of reinstatement, then he may take out appropriate
proceedings as permissible under law.
( VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. )
shivani/
Checking your session…