Dismissed

Aruna Ramesh Tathe v. Social Welfare Officer, District Social Welfare Office, Nagpur

Bombay HC19 Jan 2016CP/218/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a contempt petition alleging that the respondents failed to pay salary arrears. The Court held that since the petitioner had received salary from 1.4.2014 as per the earlier order and other issues remain pending in a related writ petition, no case for contempt was made out.

What did the court decide?

The Contempt Petition is dismissed as without substance.

Aruna Ramesh Tathe Vs Social Welfare Officer, District… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

19.1CP.218.15

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 218/15 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1852 OF 2014. (Aruna Ramesh Tathe .vs. Shri Siddharth Gaikwad, Social Welfare Officer)

¶5

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

¶6

Mr. P. Gode, Advocate for petitioner, Mr. A.M. Balpande, A.G.P. for respondent no.1. Mr. V.A. Dhabe, Advocate for intervenor.

¶7

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 19, 2016.

¶8

The petitioners have approached this Court contending therein that that the respondents have committed the contempt of the order passed by this Court dated 10.10.2014. The perusal of the order dated 10.10.2014 would reveal that the learned A.G.P. had placed on record a communication dated 9.10.2014 wherein it was stated that the petitioner no.1 would be paid salary subject to the decision of Writ Petition No. 3461/14 pending before the Aurangabad Bench and after verification that the petitioner no.1 was performing her duty.

¶9

The perusal of the communication dated 9.10.2014 would reveal that the Government has decided to pay the salary from 1.4.2014. It further reveals that it was, therefore, decided that subject to the final outcome of the Writ Petition No. 3461/14, the salaries would be paid to the petitioner from 1.4.2014 after confirmation that she was actually rendering service.

¶10

The petitioners do not dispute that they are receiving

¶11

19.1CP.218.15

¶12

¶13

salary from 1.4.2014. The contempt is alleged that the arrears of the salary prior to that period are not paid.

¶14

We find that the other issues with regard to arrears, etc. can be considered only after final decision in Writ Petition No. 3461/14. Since the statement which was made before the Court on 10.10.2014 is already complied with, we do not find that any case is made out for invoking contempt jurisdiction.

¶15

The Contempt Petition is, therefore, without substance and as such dismissed.

¶16

Judge J.

¶17

Judge

Aruna Ramesh Tathe v. Social Welfare Officer, District Social Welfare Office, Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aruna Ramesh Tathe v. Social Welfare Officer, District Social Welfare Office, Nagpur

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

Madhukar Vishwanath Dharkar Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Water Resources Deptt., Mumbai and 2 Others

Anil Mahadeo Shende Vs P.O. University and College Tribunal, Nagpur and Ors.

Sunil S/O Gayaprasad Mishra Vs the Chancellor Rashatrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University

Nagorao S/O Pandurang Kumare Vs State of Maharashtra, Throughits Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Mumbai and Another

Late Chandkhan Ibrahimkhan Pathan Thoruhg Lrs., Mumtaj Begum W/O Chandkhan Pathan Vs Shri Rupendra Singh Director, Ground Water Survey and Development Agency, Pune and 3 Others

Eco-Pro Bahu-Uddeshiya Sanstha through Its President Bandu S/O Sitaram Dhotre Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Dept. of Energy Mumbai and 6 Others