Disposed

Rehana Begum Sk. Safdar v. Mr. Ashok Wakode, E.O. (Sec.), Z.P. Amravati and Oths

Bombay HC7 Jan 2015CP/22/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt petition addressed unpaid salary from November 2010 to June 2011. The court found non-payment was due to missing salary bills from the school management. It directed respondents to submit bills and sanction payment within four weeks. Contempt proceedings were disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondents to submit salary bills for November 2010 to 07.06.2011 within four weeks for subsequent sanction and payment.

Rehana Begum Sk. Safdar Vs Mr. Ashok Wakode, E.O… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

CP22-13

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

C.P. NO.22/2013 IN L.P.A. NO. 96/2009 IN W.P. NO.3874/2008 (D)

¶5

(REHNA BEGUM SK. SAFDAR VERSUS ASHOK WAKODE, EDUCATION OFFICER (SECONDARY), Z.P. AMRAVATI & OTHERS)

¶6

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

¶8

Shri A.M. Sudame, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs.K.R. Deshpande, A.G.P. for the R-1. Shri Alok Upasani, counsel for the R-2 & 3.

¶9

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

¶10

DATE : JANUARY 7, 2015.

¶11

Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

The present contempt petition has been filed with a limited grievance that the salary of the petitioner has not been paid from November-2010 till 07.06.2011, i.e. when the school was derecognized.

¶13

In the affidavit filed by one Chandansingh Ramsingh Rathod, the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Amravati, it has been stated thus -----

¶14

“ I further say that, the salary of the petitioner is paid till the period it was submitted by the school authorities. I further say that if the school authorities submit the salary bill in respect of the petitioner, my office is ready to release the salary of the petitioner for the afore-stated period i.e. from November 2010 up to 07.06.2011. ”

¶15

CP22-13

¶16

¶17

It is, thus, clear that the salary for the aforesaid period, i.e. November-2010 till 07.06.2011 could not be paid to the petitioner as the management has not furnished the salary bills.

¶18

Shri Upasani, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3, makes a categorical statement that the respondent nos.2 and 3 are willing to submit the salary bills of the petitioner to the respondent no.1-Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Amravati.

¶19

In that view of the matter, the contempt petition is disposed of with following directions.

¶20

I) The respondent nos.2 and 3 shall submit the salary bills of the petitioner for the period from November-2010 to 07.06.2011, to the respondent no.1. The same shall be done within a period of four weeks from today.

¶21

II) On receipt of the salary bills of the petitioner for the period from November-2010 to 07.06.2011, the respondent no.1 shall sanction the same and pay the salary to the petitioner for the aforesaid period within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶22

Order accordingly. No costs.

¶23

JUDGE JUDGE

¶24

APTE

Rehana Begum Sk. Safdar v. Mr. Ashok Wakode, E.O. (Sec.), Z.P. Amravati and Oths

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rehana Begum Sk. Safdar v. Mr. Ashok Wakode, E.O. (Sec.), Z.P. Amravati and Oths

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

Lakhpatibai W/O Natthulal Gupta (Dead) through Lrs. Sau. Meerabai W/O Shrikirshna Gupta and 2 Other Vs Smt. Jotshna Wd/O Suresh Saikhede and Others

Subhas S/O Santosh Charpe and Ors. Vs Santosh S/O Pandurang Charpe and Anr.

Chanda Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Another. Vs Murlidhar Kashinath Dange and Another.

Anil Shamsundar Agre Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Shri Paramjeet Singh Kalsi Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary (Transport) Home Department, Mumbai and Others

Sandeep Santosh Anjankar Vs Sau. Vaishali @ Sukhada W/O Sandeep Anjankar