Disposed

Jitendra Manohar Padalkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Feb 2007WP/4902/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court, in a writ petition, directed the State to initiate salary payment for respondents. Officers tendered apologies and explanations. The Court, accepting the apology, chose not to initiate contempt proceedings and ordered salary release within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Salary grant to be released within eight weeks of paper submission; no contempt proceedings initiated.

Jitendra Manohar Padalkar Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.4902 of 2006

¶4

Shri Jitendra Manohar Padalkar ..Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors...Respondents

¶7

Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar, for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. K.V.Saste, for Respondent No.3 and 4.

¶8

CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & S.J.VAZIFDAR, JJ.

¶9

DATED : 13TH FEBRUARY 2007

¶10

P.C.

¶11

. Rule. Heard forthwith.

¶12

Pursuant to the order dated 29th January, 2007

¶13

replies		have	been	filed	by	Prakash	Meghshyam	Parab,
Education		Offic	er (Se	condary)	Zilla	Parishad,	Pune as	also
by	B.D.		Hulwan,	Educ	ation	Officer	(Secondary),	Zilla
Parishad,		Ratnagiri.		They	have	tendered	their un	conditional
apology		and	also	explained	the	circumstances	based on	which
approval		had	not	been	granted.	Considerin	g the	apology

¶14

tendered we do not propose to initiate any proceedings in

¶15

contempt against the said Officers.

¶16

It must, however,, be made clear to all officers

¶17

concerned	that	they	have	t	o	act			in		aid	and assis	tance	of
this Court.		Judgments	of	t	his	C	o	u	rt		must	be given	effect	to
irrespective	o	f any	Gov	ernme	nt		R	es	olu	tion.		If the	State	is
aggrieved	by	the ord	er	of		this			Cou	rt	the	proper for	um is	to
prefer an		Appeal.	It	is		not			ope	n	to	any officer	once	the
judgment	is	pronounc	ed	and		declar	e	d		by	thi	s Court	not	to
follow	that	judgment.		A	s	w	e			hav	e	noted earlier	consid	ering

the

unconditional

apology

and

explanation

given

the

facts

of this case we do not propose to act against the affiants

¶28

who have filed the affidavits.

¶29

In the affidavit it is also set out that the approval

¶30

has be	en granted.	Onc	e	the	ap	proval	is	grante	d the
respondents	on	the	manage	ment	submit	ting	the	papers	for
salary	grant, to	release	the	grant	at	any	rate	not	later
than	eight weeks	from	the	neces	sary	papers	being		submitted

¶31

by the management. Rule made absolute accordingly. No

¶32

order as to costs.

¶33

( F.I. REBELLO , J)

¶34

( S.J.VAZIFDAR, J)

Jitendra Manohar Padalkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Manohar Padalkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arjun Devram Mathe and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Premchand Nathu Mahajan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gad Shipping and Transport Pvt.Ltd. Vs Goods Transport Labour Board and Ors.

Prathmesh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Prathmesh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Prathamesh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.