Dismissed

Dr. Ramdas S/O Govindrao Chaware v. Sau. Archana Nerkar, Joint Director of Higher Education, Amravati and 2 Others

Bombay HC13 Apr 2018CP/112/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In contempt proceedings alleging willful disobedience regarding non-release of leave encashment, the Court held that the impugned order lacked a specific direction to release funds, only directing the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as no contempt was established.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed with no order as to costs. Petitioner advised to avail appropriate remedy.

Dr. Ramdas S/O Govindrao Chaware Vs Sau… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 cp112.18.odt

¶2

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

¶3

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.112 OF 2018

¶4

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.6522 OF 2015 [D]

¶6

[Dr. Ramdas s/o Govindrao Chaware .vs. Sau. Archana Nerkar and others]

¶7

¶8

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

¶9

Court's or Judge's orders

¶10

- - - - Shri Anup D. Dangore, counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ. DATED : APRIL 13, 2018.

¶12

Heard.

¶13

By this contempt petition the petitioner seeks an action against the respondents for willful disobedience of the directions in the order dated 27.6.2016.

¶14

It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that by the order dated 27.6.2016 the petitioner was permitted to make a representation and the respondents were directed to decide the same within four weeks. It is stated that the education authorities have released the amount payable to the petitioner towards leave encashment to the management but the management is not releasing the same.

¶15

The petitioner ought not have filed the contempt petition as we do not find any direction in the order of which the contempt is alleged, directing the management or the education authority to release the amount towards leave encashment benefits to the petitioner. The court had only directed the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within four weeks. After that, there is no direction to any of the respondents to do any particular act. In the absence of any

¶16

2 cp112.18.odt

¶17

specific direction against the respondents to pay the amount towards leave encashment benefits to the petitioner, action under the Contempt of Courts Act cannot be initiated against the respondents.

¶18

In the result, we dismiss the contempt petition with no order as to costs. The petitioner is free to avail the appropriate remedy if so advised. Order accordingly.

¶19

JUDGE

¶20

JUDGE

¶21

Gulande

Dr. Ramdas S/O Govindrao Chaware v. Sau. Archana Nerkar, Joint Director of Higher Education, Amravati and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Ramdas S/O Govindrao Chaware v. Sau. Archana Nerkar, Joint Director of Higher Education, Amravati and 2 Others

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

Sau. Mamta Chaitmal Bokade Vs Sudhir S/O. Sitaram Kohad and Another

Dr. Rameshchandra Shankarlalji Saboo and Others Vs the State of Maha. Thr. Chief Secretary, Town Planning Department, Mumbai and Another

Ayesha Parveen W/O. Abdul Rahman Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Home Dept., Mantralaya Mumbai and Others

Dr. Tikeshwar Gautamrao Ghotekar Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Jaripatka P.S. Nagpur

Mohd. Iqba Mohd. Hanif Sheikh (in Jail) Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary of Home Department Mumbai and Others

Raju S/O. Pandurang Kokate (in Jail) Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. D.I.G. Prison (East) Nagpur and Another