Disposed

Yeegram S/O Sahebrao Karale and Others v. Smt. Nayana Arjun Gunde Chief Executive Officer Z. P. Wardha and Another

Bombay HC19 Jan 2018CP/246/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

While disposing of a contempt petition arising from prior directions in a writ petition regarding salaries for teachers, the Court held that since petitioners were never declared surplus and never received graduate teacher salaries, the prior direction could not be found to be in contempt.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; liberty to take other legal steps granted; no costs.

Yeegram S/O Sahebrao Karale and Others Vs Smt. Nayana… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Contempt Petition No.246/2016

¶3

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3982/2014

¶5

(Yeegram s/o Sahebrao Karale and others vs.smt. Nayana Arjun Gunde and another )

¶6

.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of

¶7

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Mr. P.S. Kshirsagar, Adv. for petitioners

¶9

Mr. P.D.Meghe, Adv. for respondents 1 and 2

¶10

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 19^th January, 2018.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

The Division Bench, while disposing of Writ Petition No. 3982/2014 on 22.1.2016 in paragraph 2, has taken note of earlier judgment where teachers were found surplus and therefore protected. Applying that judgment in paragraph 3, a direction has been given to respondents and the Court observed that respondents are bound to protect salaries as are given to petitioners in the scale of graduate teachers.

¶13

In present matter, we find that the petitioners were not declared surplus and even they were not getting salaries as graduate teachers.

¶14

In this situation, we find substance in contention of Adv. Meghe, that there is no contempt. The direction in paragraph 3, at the most, is to protect “existing salaries” received by petitioners.

¶15

¶16

If salaries of petitioners were never increased, technically we cannot find any contempt.

¶17

Hence, with liberty to petitioners to take such other steps as are open to them in law, we dispose of present contempt. No costs.

¶18

JUDGE

¶19

JUDGE

¶20

sahare

Yeegram S/O Sahebrao Karale and Others v. Smt. Nayana Arjun Gunde Chief Executive Officer Z. P. Wardha and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yeegram S/O Sahebrao Karale and Others v. Smt. Nayana Arjun Gunde Chief Executive Officer Z. P. Wardha and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayshree Ramesh Kulte Vs R.V. Ganjiwale, President, Hutatma Smarak Samiti, Ashti and Anr.

Ku. Jayshree Ramesh Kulte Vs Shri Vinayak S. Pare and Another

Shri. Baban Jairam Randive, Chandrapur Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Anoopsingh S/O Mohansingh Parihar Vs Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, Mumbai Thr. Secretary and Others

Shri. Pradeep Ramrao Dorlikar and Others Vs Shri Devendra Gangadhar Rao Fadnavis, Honable Chief Minister and Minister,Urban Devpt.Deptt.and 1

Komalprasad S/O Narayan Katare and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and 4 Others