Disposed

Sidhu Kisan Mhaske v. Mr. E. B. Patil Principal Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Jul 2014CP/5/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt petition dealt with the enforcement of an order directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Chowkidar. The court directed the appointment and benefits w.e.f. 1 November 2013, rejecting the claim for earlier dates.

What did the court decide?

Direction to appoint Petitioner to post of Chowkidar and give all benefits w.e.f. 1 November 2013 including arrears of salary.

Sidhu Kisan Mhaske Vs Mr. E. B. Patil Principal… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

cp-5-2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.5 OF 2014 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4352 OF 2013

¶5

Sidhu Kisan Mhaske .. Petitioner. V/s. Mr.E.B. Patil & Others .. Respondents.

¶6

Ms. Mani Prakash i/b. Gayatri Singh, for the Petitioner. Mr. A. I. Patel, AGP for Respondent-State.

¶7

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & M.S.SANKLECHA,J. DATE : 14 JULY 2014.

¶8

P.C:-

¶9

Although the praecipe dated 17 June, 2014 has been taken out for speaking to the minutes of our order dated 15 January 2014, having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we take up the matter on board for speaking to the minutes of order dated 31 January 2014.

¶10

2 In our order dated 8 October 2013, we had directed the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner to the post of Chowkidar on the basis of the appointment letter dated 12 July 2012. Since that direction was not complied with, we had to issue another direction on 15 January 2014, directing Respondents to comply with our earlier directions before 24 January 2014. In the said order, we made it clear that since the delay, prima facie appeared to be attributable to Respondents and not to the Petitioner, the Petitioner should be given all benefits from 1 November

1 of 2

S.R.JOSHI

cp-5-2014

Accordingly, Respondents were directed to give the Petitioner all benefits w.e.f. 1 November 2013 unless good cause to the contrary is shown.

¶15

3 Thereafter, by our order dated 31 January 2014, we disposed of the Contempt Petition after Respondents placed on record office order dated 23 January 2014 and the Petitioner was directed to report for duty.

¶16

4 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner requested that since the appointment order was issued on 12 July 2012, the Petitioner should be given all the benefits w.e.f. 12 July 2012. Learned Counsel for the Respondents opposed the above request.

¶17

5 Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, the direction for appointment of the Petitioner to the post of Chowkidar was given as per our order dated 8 October 2013. Our subsequent order dated 15 January 2014 also indicated that the benefit should be given to the Petitioner w.e.f. 1 November 2013 unless good cause is shown to the contrary by the Respondents. The Respondents have not been able to show any reason why the benefit of employment should not be given to the Petitioner w.e.f. 1 November 2013. This praecipe is disposed of with a direction to the Respondents that they shall appoint the Petitioner to the post of Chowkidar and give all the benefits to the Petitioner w.e.f. 1 November 2013 including arrears of salary.

¶18

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶19

(M.S.SANKLECHA,J.)

¶20

2 of 2

¶21

S.R.JOSHI

Sidhu Kisan Mhaske v. Mr. E. B. Patil Principal Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidhu Kisan Mhaske v. Mr. E. B. Patil Principal Secretary 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

Rajender Singh Sethi and Inderjit Kaur R. Sethi Vs Punit Automobile and Punit Singh Jeet Singh Borga

Sanghi Spinners India Ltd. Vs Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Lokhandwala Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bayer Corporation Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mmtc Ltd. Vs Millennium WIRE3S (P) Ltd. and 6 Ors.

Atlanta Ltd. Vs Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd. and 7 Ors.