Quashed

Smt. B. a. Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Feb 2013CP/361/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a contempt petition filed against the State and Education Officer. It held that the delay in complying with a previous order was not deliberate. The petitioner was advised to initiate proceedings against the management for salary recovery.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of; Liberty granted to petitioner to adopt proceedings against management.

Smt. B. a. Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

cp361-12

¶2

vai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.361 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO.598 OF 2012

¶5

Smt.B.A. Sheikh V/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr.Shailendra S. Kanetkar for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr.A.I. Patel, A.G.P. for the State – Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶11

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR &

¶12

MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2013.

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

The contempt is alleged of an order dated 13.04.2012, by which the Education Officer was directed to consider the question about payment of salary to the petitioner for a period from 02.11.2011 onwards. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed their affidavit in reply. By an order dated 11.12.2012, the Division Bench noted the learned AGP’s submission that the issue has been considered and an order dated 10.08.2012 has been passed after hearing all the concerned parties. Though the order was passed beyond the time stipulated in the said order dated 13.04.2012, the same does not

¶15

1/2

¶16

cp361-12

¶17

appear to have been deliberate. In fact no fault can be found against respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the said delay.

¶18

By an order dated 11.12.2012 passed in this contempt petition, the Division Bench directed the Education Officer to ensure the implementation of the directions given by him to the management by a letter dated 21.04.2012 and 02.05.2012 within a period of four weeks. Prima-facie at least the Education Officer does not have power to recover the amounts from the petitioner. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 however, are always at liberty to take any other effective steps in this regard. Further the petitioner is at liberty to adopt proceedings against the management – respondent Nos.4 and 5 in this regard.

¶19

Subject to above clarifications, no further orders in the contempt petition are necessary. 4. The contempt petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶20

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.)

¶21

2/2

Smt. B. a. Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. B. a. Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhosale Ashok Laxman Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Naveen Dilip Pachabhaiye Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr. Kishore Bhaskar Savant Vs B.N.N. College, through Chairman/President, Padmashree Annasaheb Jadahv Bharatiya Samaj and Ors.

Shri. Prabhakar Govindrao Arade Vs the State of Maharasthra and Ors.

Ukkuda Vilasini Ratnakar Vs Mr. Damodar Krishna Deshmukh

Upekshit Janata Seva Sangh, Ulhasnagar, through President and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.