1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

  CONTEMPT PETITION(CIVIL) NO.51 OF 2008

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO.640 OF 2007

SUBASH GOPALRAO LINGAWAR                                 Petitioner(s)

                       VERSUS

SADASHIV SHIWAJI DONADKAR & ORS.                         Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Pursuant to the order passed by us on 18th August,  2008, Shri  Vijay V.  

Meshram,  the  Education  Officer,  Zilla  Parishad,  Sonapur  Complex,  District  

Gadchiroli,  Maharashtra,  the alleged contemnor No.3, is personally present in  

Court.  Appearing on his behalf, Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel,  

has brought to our notice the relevant rules of the Masharashtra Employees of  

Private Schools Rules,  1981.  The relevant rule, which has been placed by Mr.  

Naphade  is  rule  35,  which  deals  with  conditions  of  suspension  and  reads  as  

follows:-

“35.Condition  of  suspension:(1)In  cases  where  the  Management  desires  to  suspend  an  employee,  he

2

shall be suspended only with the prior approval of  the appropriate authority mentioned in rule 33. (2)The  period  of  suspension  shall  not  exceed  four  

months except with the prior permission of such  appropriate authority.

(3)In  case  where  the  employee  is  suspended  with  prior  approval,  he  shall  be  paid  subsistence  allowance under the scheme of payment through  Co-operative Banks for a period of four months  only and thereafter,  the payment shall  be made  by the Management concerned.

(4)In case where the employee is suspended by the  Management without obtaining prior approval of  the  appropriate  authority  as  aforesaid,  the  payment of subsistence allowance even during the  first  four months of  suspension and for further  period  thereafter  till  the  completion  of  inquiry  shall be made by the Management itself.

(5)The subsistence allowance shall  not be withheld  except in cases of breach of provisions of sub-rule  (3) or (4) of rule 33.”    

As will appear from sub-rule (2), the period of suspension of an employee is not to  

exceed four months except with the prior permission of the appropriate authority.  

Sub-rule (3) indicates that in case the employee is suspended with prior approval,  

he shall  be paid subsistence allowance under the scheme of  the payment for a  

period of  four months only  and thereafter,  the payment shall  be made by the  

Management  concerned.   Sub-rule  (4)  indicates  that  where  the  employee  is  

suspended  by  the  Management  without  obtaining  prior  approval  of  the  

appropriate authority, the entire payment of subsistence allowance would have to  

be borne by the Management itself.

3

It has been contended by Mr. Naphade that no prior approval had been  

obtained from the authorities before any order of suspension was given effect to.

On behalf of the school authorities, it has been submitted by Mr. Manish  

Pitale, learned counsel,  that by virtue of the order passed on 07/02/2007 out of  

which the contempt petition arises, the petitioner was to be treated as being under  

suspension and would be entitled to subsistence allowance as per rules with effect  

from  the  date  of  termination  of  his  services.   According  to  Mr.  Pitale,  the  

petitioner had never been placed under suspension by the school authorities, but  

his  suspension took effect  having regard to the order passed by this  Court  on  

07/02/2007, and hence the question of obtaining sanction under the rules did not  

arise.

Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  petitioner,  however,  contended  that  

since in our order we had directed that the petitioner was to be treated to be under  

suspension with effect from the date of termination of his services, the petitioner  

would be entitled to subsistence allowance from the year 2000 when his services  

were terminated.

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we have to keep in  

mind  the  fact  that  the  contempt  proceeding  arises  out  of  the  said  order  of  

07/02/2007 and the petitioner was to be treated to be under suspension only by  

virtue of the order passed by this Court.  In our view, since the petitioner was  

placed under suspension with effect from 07/02/2007 by virtue of the order passed

4

by this Court, the period of suspension must be computed from the date of the  

order,  and  not  with  retrospective  effect  from  the  date  of  termination  of  his  

services.

From  the  submissions  made  on  behalf  of  the  alleged  contemnor  of  the  

parties, and the affidavits filed, it is difficult to arrive at a finding that there was  

any deliberate or willful intention to violate the directions passed by this Court on  

07/02/2007, as there was some confusion regarding the interpretation of rule 35 of  

the above-mentioned rules.   

However, in order to do justice to the parties, we dispose of the contempt  

petition by taking recourse to sub-rule(3) of rule 35 of the above-mentioned rules,  

and  direct  respondent  1,  the  Education  Officer,  Zilla  Parishad,  Gadchiroli,  

Maharashtra, to pay to the petitioner a lump sum amount of Rs.30,000/-  towards  

subsistence allowance for a period of four months.  In addition, we also direct the  

school  authorities  to  pay to  the  petitioner  a  further  sum of  Rs.70,000/-.   Such  

payments are to be made to the petitioner within four weeks from date.

   ....................J.     (ALTAMAS KABIR)

   ....................J.     (MARKANDEY KATJU)

NEW DELHI; September 05,   2008.

5