Dismissed

Smt Shaikh Kausar Rizwana D/O. Abbas Ali v. Khurshuid Naik Secretary Bukhari Edn Society Majalgaon Dist Beed

Bombay HC28 Jan 2014CP/52/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This oral order declined to entertain an allegation of contempt regarding delayed reinstantment. The court held that since the underlying matter is sub-judice in a Letters Patent Appeal, the order was not being disobeyed purposely. The petition is disposed of, and the petitioner is free to pursue salary grievances separately.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed; rule discharged; civil application disposed of; petitioner to pursue salary claims separately.

Smt Shaikh Kausar Rizwana D/O. Abbas Ali Vs Khurshuid Naik… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Contempt Petition No.52/2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.52 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.582 OF 1989

¶5

W I T H

¶6

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10438 OF 2013

¶7

Smt. Shaikh Kausar Rizwana d/o Abbas Ali, Age 45 years, Occ. Service, (at present Nil), R/o Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Khurshid Naik, Secretary, Bukhari Education Society Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed.

¶11

Siddiqui Munish Uddin, Head Master, Bukhari Urdu Primary School, Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed.

¶12

Shri Vikram Pokale, Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Beed, Taluka and District Beed.

¶13

Shri Sukhdev Sanap, Age major, Occ. Service, Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, District Beed. ... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(Respondent No.4 added in C.A. No.10438/2013 as per leave of the Hon'ble Court, dated 14.10.2013)

¶15

Shri V.D. Gunale, Advocate for petitioner

¶16

Contempt Petition No.52/2010

¶17

¶18

Shri V.C. Patil, Advocate holding for Shri U.B. Bondar, Advocate for respondent No.4 in C.A. No.10438/2013

¶19

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

¶20

DATED: 28th January, 2014.

¶21

ORAL ORDER :

¶22

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

This Contempt Petition was moved for non compliance of judgment and order dated 4.7.2008, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.582/1989. The direction was to reinstate the petitioner and respondents were directed to pay 50% of the back wages to the petitioner. Against this order, counsel agree that Letters Patent Appeal No.183/2008 has been admitted. It is stated that, no interim relief was granted in the same.

¶24

It appears that, in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 183/2008, Civil Application No.15275/2011 was moved for stay and against the order of rejection, Civil Appeal No. 2707/2012 was carried to the Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court on 24.1.2012 stayed the order dated 4.7.2008 (which is the concerned order in this Contempt Petition) to the extent of 50% back wages.

¶25

Contempt Petition No.52/2010

¶26

¶27

Reinstatement was not stayed. It was subsequently submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the counsel for appellants that, reinstatement in service has been done and order of the Supreme Court, dated 24.1.2012, staying payment of back wages could be made absolute pending disposal of the appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the appeal making order of the Supreme Court, dated 24.1.2012 absolute. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, thus payment of back wages has been stayed and Letters Patent Appeal No.183/2008 is pending.

¶28

Looking to these developments, it cannot be said that the order dated 4.7.2008, which is concerned order in this Contempt Petition is being disobeyed.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner is making further submissions that, after reinstatement, bills of the petitioner have not been submitted and there is also dispute regarding payment of salary. I find that the Contempt Petition was brought for disobedience of the order dated 4.7.2008 in Writ Petition No.582/1989. That matter is already carried forward in the Letters Patent Appeal. As such, there is no reason to keep this Contempt Petition pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,

¶30

Contempt Petition No.52/2010

¶31

¶32

the Contempt Petition has been admitted and there was contempt as the order dated 4.7.2008 required that the petitioner should be reinstated in sixteen weeks from the order dated 4.7.2008, but she has been reinstated only on 1.2.2012. Thus, according to him, this amounts to contempt.

¶33

When Letters Patent Appeal No.183/2008 was moved in the same year, and the Letters Patent Appeal has been admitted, I do not find that it can be said that the orders were being disobeyed purposely. In the circumstances, I do not find any substance in the Contempt Petition. The Contempt Petition is disposed of. Rule discharged. Consequently as main matter is being disposed, Civil Application No.10438/2013 does not survive and stands disposed of.

¶34

The petitioner is at liberty to pursue her grievance regarding non payment of salary and other consequential benefits on reinstatement, in appropriate proceedings.

¶35

(A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.)

¶36

fmp/cp52.10

Smt Shaikh Kausar Rizwana D/O. Abbas Ali v. Khurshuid Naik Secretary Bukhari Edn Society Majalgaon Dist Beed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shaikh Kausar Rizwana D/O. Abbas Ali v. Khurshuid Naik Secretary Bukhari Edn Society Majalgaon Dist Beed

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

Motabai Bankat Chavan Vs Dharmaji Somlala Chavan

Rameshchandra Daulal Soni and Others Vs Devichand Hiralal Gandhi, Died Lrs Gulabbai and Others

Ganpatrao Madhavdrao Nagime Vs Gopalrao Madhavdrao Nagime

Eknath Bhikaji Kharat Vs Maleka Begum Bashir Shaikh and Others

Shaikh Kausar Rizwana Abbas Ali Vs Khurshuid Naik and Others

Shivshankar Birajsing Pardeshi Deceased through L.Rs. Gokulsing Shivshankar Pardeshi and Others Vs Chagansing Mansing Pardeshi