Disposed

Vijay Raman Choudhari v. Sudhir U Meshram and Another

Bombay HC7 Dec 2016CP/411/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad in a contempt petition directed respondents to pay salary to the petitioner for the period March 2015 to 29th July 2015, which was not paid despite the operation of interim orders restraining termination of services.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay salary to the petitioner from March 2015 to 29th July 2015 within three months.

Vijay Raman Choudhari Vs Sudhir U Meshram and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

24.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

 24 CONT. PETITION NO. 411 OF 2016

¶4

IN WP/8701/2013

¶5

VIJAY RAMAN CHOUDHARI
VERSUS

¶6

SUDHIR U MESHRAM AND ANOTHER

¶7

...

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Patil Vinod Prakash
Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 : Mr. A. B. Girase

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

1. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the

¶11

petitioner submits that in spite of the fact that this
Court had restrained the respondents from terminating

¶12

the services of the petitioner, in defiance of the
said order, the services of the petitioner were
terminated. The petitioner is not paid salary from
March, 2015 to 29th July, 2015.

¶13

2. Mr. Girase, the learned counsel appearing for
respondents 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner has
signed muster only up to May, 2015. The learned counsel
submits that termination order is set aside by this

¶14

Court. The respondents had explained the circumstance

¶15

under which the said order came to be issued. It is not

¶16

1/3

¶17

24.odt

¶18

a case of deliberate and willful disobedience of the

¶19

orders of the Court.

¶20

3. We have considered the submissions.

¶21

4. As far as the order terminating services of the
petitioner during pendency of the Writ Petition No.8701
of 2013 and during operation of the interim order is
concerned, the same need not be dilated as, this Court,
while passing the final judgment in the said writ
petition, has considered it.

¶22

5. The petitioner certainly would be entitled to
salary till the pronouncement of the judgment in the
writ petition as the interim order was continued till
pronouncement of the judgment. Naturally, when the
respondents, inspite of interim orders being in
operation, had terminated the services of the
petitioner, the petitioner could not have signed the
muster. Be that as it may, interest of justice will be
suvbsered by passing the following order:

¶23

6. The respondents shall pay salary to the

¶24

petitioner from March, 2015 to 29thJuly, 2015,

¶25

expeditiously preferably within three months from

¶26

today. After verifying the record, if any payment is

¶27

24.odt made for the period between March, 2015 to 29^th July, 2015, the same shall be adjusted.

¶28

7. Contempt petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶29

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. )

¶30

JPC

¶31

3/3

Vijay Raman Choudhari v. Sudhir U Meshram and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Raman Choudhari v. Sudhir U Meshram and Another

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

Abdul Naim Abdul Rauf and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Namdeo Kisan Gaikwad and Another Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Maulasab S/O Shaikh Mirasab and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Karbhari Jaywantrao Tribhuwan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Babasaheb Thakaji Khaladkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Digambar Chandrabhan Aagre and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others