Disposed

Amrut Bapurao Kusale v. Anil Ambadasrao Mahajan and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Jan 2014CP/284/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt proceeding, the High Court disposed of the petitionia claim that the Management intended to violate a prior order. The Court observed that the amount had been calculated and paid by the Education Officer upon dispute, finding no intention to disobey the court.

What did the court decide?

The Contempt Petition is disposed of as there is no need to keep it pending due to compliance by the respondents.

Amrut Bapurao Kusale Vs Anil Ambadasrao Mahajan and Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

cp284.11

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.284 OF 2011 IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.3248 OF 2009

¶7

Amrut s/o Bapurao Kusale,
R/o-bapu Niwas, LIC Colony,
Nagazari Parisar, Tq-Ambejogai,
Dist-Beed.

¶8

...PETITIONER
 VERSUS

¶9

1) Anil s/o Ambadasrao Mahajan,
 The President of
 Bhartiya Shikshan Prasarak
 Sanstha, Ambejogai,
 Tq-Ambejogai, Dist-Beed,

¶10

2) Satish s/o Rajabao Patki, The Secretary of Bhartiya Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, Ambejogai, Tq-Ambejogai, Dist-Beed,

¶11

3) jemla s/o Khiraji Rathod, The Head Master of Kholeshwar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Ambejogai, Tq-Ambejogai, Dist-Beed,

¶12

4) The Education Officer(Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Beed.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

cp284.11

¶15

¶16

...

¶17

 Shri P.M. Nagargoje Advocate h/f. Shri R.J.
 Godbole Advocate for Petitioner.
 Shri Vivek Bhavthankar Advocate for
 Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
 Shri S.R. Palnitkar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.4

¶18

...

¶19

CORAM: A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.

¶20

 DATE : 21ST JANUARY, 2014

¶21

ORAL ORDER :

¶22

1. Heard learned counsel for both sides. The
directions in Para 8 (iii) and (iv) of the orders
dated 15th June, 2010, passed in Writ Petition No.
3248 of 2009, were said to have been violated and
hence the Contempt Petition.

¶23

2.The Respondent Management filed reply and
gave details and in Para 5 calculations of the
amount were given. The amounts of subsistence
allowance disputed, relate to period from 9th
April, 2009 to 31st May, 2010. The Petitioner
disputed the correctness of the amount. By order
dated 24th June, 2013, Respondent No.4 - Education

¶24

cp284.11

¶25

¶26

Officer was directed to hear the Petitioner and
Respondent No.1 regarding the contention that the
calculation has not been done as per 6th Pay
Commission and Education Officer was directed to
prepare report and submit the same before the
Court.

¶27

3.The report of the Education Officer has
been filed with letter dated 17th July, 2013. The
Education Officer did needful and recorded in
Conclusions Para 5 that an amount of Rs.1,11,341/-
(Rupees One Lakh Eleven Thousand Three Hundred
Forty One) needs to be paid to the Petitioner.

¶28

4.Learned counsel for Petitioner is still
disputing that correctness of amounts. Learned
counsel is referring to the Conclusion Para 1
drawn by the Education Officer, where it is
observed that as the service book of the
Petitioner was not available, the calculation has
been made on the basis of pay bill of December,

¶29

cp284.11

¶30

¶31

2005. Thus, the learned counsel for Petitioner is
still disputing the amounts calculated.

¶32

5.Looking to the fact that for compliance

¶33

of the order of the Court, the Management has
calculated the amount and paid and when the same

¶34

was disputed, Education Officer has also
calculated the amount and what was calculated by
the Education Officer has also been paid, it
cannot be now said that the Management has had
intention to disobey the Orders of the Court. If
the Petitioner still feels unsatisfied, he may
resort to appropriate proceedings. There is no
need to keep this Contempt Petition pending.

¶35

6.For the afore stated reasons, Contempt
Petition is disposed of.

¶36

 [A.I.S.CHEEMA,J.]

¶37

asb/JAN14

Amrut Bapurao Kusale v. Anil Ambadasrao Mahajan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrut Bapurao Kusale v. Anil Ambadasrao Mahajan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Ramvilas Sarda Vs Kondiba Ganpat Kachkure and Others

Sarva Shramik Sangh, Beed Thr. Its Joint Sec. Vs B N Kadam and Ors.

Shridhar Gangaram Pawar and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dattatraya Bhagwan Barate Vs Bajrang Bhagwan Shinde and Others

Roshanbi Rasool Tamboli and Others Vs Rajendra Ramchandra Patil and Others

Abdul Khalil Abdul Rahim Vs Shivaji Hanumtrao Hude and Another