Disposed

Madhav (Mahadu) Sitaram Nangare v. Ganpatrao More and Others

Bombay HC24 Aug 2018CP/542/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a contempt petition filed against respondents for alleged non-compliance of an order directing payment of salary arrears. After reviewing affidavits showing the salary bills were submitted to the competent authority, the court issued directions to the Education Officer and Superintendent of Pay Unit to ensure immediate disbursement of dues within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of; Respondents directed to ensure disbursement of petitioner's salary within three weeks.

Madhav (Mahadu) Sitaram Nangare Vs Ganpatrao More and Others — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

542.17cp

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 542 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8508 OF 2013

¶5

Madhav (Mahadu) Sitaram Nangare
Age: 50 years, Occ: Service,
R/o. At post Nanand,
Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur...PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1.Shri. Ganpatrao More,
Age: Major, Occ: Service as
Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Latur.

¶8

2.Vilas Baburao Shingade,
Age: 60 years, Occ: Business
& Secretary, Vivekanand Shikshan
Sanstha, Nanand, R/o. Nanand,
Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur.

¶9

3.Sanjay Pandurang Lade,
Age: 42 years, Occ: Service as
Head Master, Dnyaneshwar
Vidyalaya, Harijawalga,
Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur.

¶10

4. The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENTS

¶11

Mr V. P. Golewar, Advocate for petitioner;
Mr A. R. Lukhe, Advocate holding for Mr A. S.
Shelke, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3
Mr S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 4

¶12

542.17cp

¶13

(2)

¶14

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &

¶15

MANISH PITALE,JJ.

¶16

 DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2018

¶17

ORAL ORDER :

¶18

Heard Mr. Golewar, learned Counsel

¶19

appearing for the petitioner.

¶20

2.The grievance of the petitioner is, in
spite of the order passed by this Court, necessary
compliance is not done, more particularly
respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶21

3.The Division Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition No. 8508 of 2013, by order dated 22nd
August, 2016, considering the limited grievance of
the petitioner, directed the respondents firstly to
the institute to submit the salary bills and then
competent authority to process the salary bills
submitted by the institution in respect of the
petitioner for period from May, 2010 to November,

¶22

2011 as expeditiously as possible and preferably
within within a period of six months from the date

¶23

542.17cp

¶24

(3)

¶25

of order of this Court. The Division Bench further
made it clear that the claim of the petitioner for
payment of salary from 21st June, 1995 to November,
2006 is not being considered by this Court for the
reason that for that period, the petitioner himself
was head master of the school and that being a
disputed question of fact, this Court thought not
to enter into this disputed fact.

¶26

4.Learned Counsel appearing for the

¶27

petitioner submitted that in spite of directions of
this Court, no necessary compliance was undertaken
by the respondents. Affidavit in reply on behalf
of respondent No.1 is filed by Dr. Ganpat s/o
Shankarrao More, occupying position as Education
Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Pune. It is
stated in the affidavit in reply that though this
Court directed him to process bills within
stipulated period of six months from the date of
order, due to certain procedural difficulties, he
could not take appropriate decision within six

¶28

months and there is some delay. It is then stated

¶29

(4)

¶30

in the affidavit in reply that delay caused for
compliance of the order is not intentional but
because of procedural difficulties.

¶31

5.The document is placed on record along

¶32

with affidavit Exhibit R-1 to submit that salary
bill of the petitioner was submitted by the
institution. The Education Officer (Secondary)
also undertook exercise of hearing of the parties.
By way of order dated 6th June, 2017 the Education
Officer (Secondary) informs head master that
resolution is passed by the management thereby
granting the petitioner salary of leave period.
Resolution is dated 8th November, 2011. The
institute submitted pay bills to the pay unit for
period from May 2010 to November 2011. He further
directs that the necessary action be taken as per
provisions and in turn, compliance report be
submitted to him.

¶33

6.The other documents are placed on record

¶34

along with affidavit to submit that necessary

¶35

542.17cp

¶36

(5)

¶37

compliance is done by the Education Officer

¶38

(Secondary).

¶39

7.Learned Counsel appearing for respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 invited our attention to the affidavit
filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He
then invited our attention to the communication to
the Superintendent of Pay Unit, Latur dated
6/9/2017-5/10/2017. It is submitted in the

¶40

communication that salary bill is already submitted
to the office along with requisite proformas
referring to the demand of amount and also with
quantification of the amount.

¶41

8.The other documents are also placed on
record namely certificate issued by head master and
statement showing the arrears of bill w.e.f. May
2010 to November 2011. There is also reminder to
the Superintendent of Pay Unit dated 30th January,
2018. The submission of learned Counsel appearing
for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is, respondent Nos. 2
and 4 have also complied the order of this Court in

¶42

542.17cp

¶43

(6)

¶44

letter and spirit and now, it is only pending
beforethecompetentauthoritynamely

¶45

Superintendent of Pay Unit, Latur.

¶46

considering the fact that the Education Officer
(Secondary) who was party to the petition and who
had filed affidavit in reply in the contempt
petition also admits that pay bill is submitted by
the institute, we are of the opinion that the
grievance of the petitioner raised in the present
contempt petition can be redressed by directing the
authority with whom bill is pending i.e.
Superintendent of Pay Unit, Latur, as the documents
referred to above show that on 6/9/2017-5/10/2017
head master submitted bill to the Superintendent of
Pay Unit and also sent reminder on 30th January,
2018.

¶47

10.WedirecttheEducationOfficer
(Secondary)toestablishcontactwith

¶48

Superintendent of Pay Unit, Latur immediately and

¶49

542.17cp (7)

¶50

by apprising the superintendent, the orders of this
Court in Writ Petition as well as about filing of
the contempt petition in this Court to instruct
Superintendent of Pay Unit to take immediate steps
within three weeks and to do the needful thereby
resulting in to disbursement of the amount in
favour of the petitioner to which he is entitled
to. This direction would cause no prejudice to the
respondents.

¶51

11.Accordingly, contempt petition is disposed

¶52

of with above directions.

¶53

(MANISH PITALE)(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
JUDGE JUDGE

¶54

Tupe

Madhav (Mahadu) Sitaram Nangare v. Ganpatrao More and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhav (Mahadu) Sitaram Nangare v. Ganpatrao More and Others

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

Sayyad Mazhar Sayyad Jafar Hashmi Vs the District Collector Parbhani and Others

Balurao Bapurao Bansode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vishnu Tukaram Mundhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Smt. Rajani Vishram Patil Vs Keshav Kumar

Kamladevi Gopikishan Agrawal and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Pankaj Chandrakant Walsekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another