Dismissed

Mohd. Yusuf Mohd. Ibrahim v. Sushil Khodwekar and Others

Bombay HC25 Nov 2019CP/107/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a contempt petition regarding non-compliance of an order to regularise the petitioner as a regular employee. The court rejected the claim of partial compliance concerning pay fixation due to lack of documentary evidence but accepted the respondent's eight-week undertaking to pay the remaining dues, disposing the petition without adjudicating the pay dispute.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Petition disposed of; eight weeks' time granted to pay outstanding dues of Rs. 40,000.

Mohd. Yusuf Mohd. Ibrahim Vs Sushil Khodwekar and Others — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 33-CP-107-2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.107 OF 2017 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 9874 OF 2014

¶5

MOHD. YUSUF MOHD. IBRAHIM

¶6

...PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

SUSHIL KHODWEKAR AND OTHERS

¶9

...RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr M.H. Shaikh, Advocate for Petitioner Mrs Renuka Ghule-Palwe, Advocate for Respondent No. 1

¶11

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ. DATE : 25^th NOVEMBER, 2019

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

On grievance of non-compliance of the order of this Court, dated 2^nd February, 2015 in Writ Petition No. 9874/2014, the present contempt petition was fled. Notice was issued by this Court. In response to the notice, and more particularly, in response to the order dated 19^th September, 2019, an afdavit in reply is fled on behalf of

¶15

2 33-CP-107-2017

¶16

respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Learned Counsel Mrs. Ghule Palve invited our attention to the afdavit in reply fled on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Though the reply is fled, practically after one month post the order of this Court dated 19^th September, 2019.

¶17

Considering the issue involved is of non-compliance of the order of this Court and the grievance of the petitioner that he is deprived of some monetary benefts arising out of his services. Without going into the aspect of delay in fling reply, the contempt petition is heard by us.

¶18

In an additional afdavit on behalf of petitioner fled in this Court on 26.10.2018, a statement is made that respondent has partly complied with the judgment and order dated 02.02.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 9874/2014 by paying gratuity and other legal dues, by paying an amount of Rs. 8,55,546/-. It is further stated that from the amounts deducted from the salary of the petitioner, the amount of Rs.40,000/- is yet remained to be paid. Insofar as this aspect is concerned, it is stated in the afdavit in reply fled on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 is 4 through Shri Tukaram Karbhani Murkute, Deputy Engineer, Sub-divisional Ofcer, Minor Irrigation Sub-Division, Jintur,

¶19

3 33-CP-107-2017

¶20

Tal. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani is concerned, that due to certain difculties, such as the constituency elections and the Dipawali Festival, the amount of Rs.40,000/- remained to be paid and further eight weeks time is sought for making the payment of Rs.40,000/- with the qualifying statement that they are seeking eight weeks time for making payment of Rs.40,000/- or whichever due as per rules of their ofce.

¶21

The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted before us that even this assurance to pay Rs.40,000/- within a stipulated period of eight weeks is a part compliance of the order of this Court. The learned Counsel in support of this submission, invited our attention to the order of this Court dated 2^nd February, 2015, and more particularly, paragraph No. 5 of the order. It may not be out of place to refer to the observations of this Court in para No. 5 thus -

¶22

“5. In light of the above, except salary for the period 1986-99 is concerned, the petitioner would not be entitled. However, he has to be treated as regular employee and his date of regularisation would be the same as other fve Junior Engineers who have been regularised. Except the salary for the intervening period, the petitioner would be entitled for the same pay fxation as done of other fve Junior Engineers who have been regularised as

¶23

4 33-CP-107-2017

¶24

observed by this Court in order supra.”

¶25

The learned Counsel submitted that the

¶26

respondents have not undertaken the exercise of pay fxation of the petitioner and the petitioner though was entitled to have the pay band as per pay fxation as like the other fve Junior Engineers, who were in service of the Zilla Parishad. Now, on a specifc query to the learned Counsel, as to what were the contentions raised in the petition specifying the pay fxation for the pay band available to the petitioner or the petitioner was entitled to, the learned Counsel was unable to lay his hands on any such specifc material, and only refers to the statement in additional afdavit in reply in paragraph 3. That statement reads thusa

¶27

“I say that, I have also annexed the salary bills of one of those fve Engineers namely Mr. Kishor Lipne which is annexed as EXHIBIT J at Page 55 to 75 of this contempt petition.”

¶28

Now, on perusal of these documents, page No. 55 onwards show that it is only under the title broken period summary report. Interestingly enough, the representation dated 09.03.2015 submitted by the petitioner to the Chief Executive Ofcer, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani to post the order

¶29

5 33-CP-107-2017

¶30

of this Court only refers to the pay fxation of the petitioner from 1981 to 2004 and the pay band refer to the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/- with salary @ Rs.8475/-. Again interestingly enough, the document placed on record by the petitioner himself i.e. the necessary details submitted to the Chief Accounts and Finance Ofcer, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani for grant of pensionary benefts i.e. a proposal dated 21.03.2016 refers to the last drawn salary by the petitioner for 10 months preceding the date of retirement is Rs. 9300-34800/- Grade Pay Rs. 4300/- 17900 + Rs. 4300 total Rs. 22200/-.

¶31

In view of these facts, we are unable to accept the submissions of the learned Counsel that the order of this Court is complied only in part. At the costs of the repetition, we state that the submissions made by the learned Counsel are only oral submissions without there being any material placed on record in respect of either the pay fxation of the petitioner or the pay fxation of those other Junior Engineers.

¶32

In view of these facts, we are not inclined to expand the scope of the present contempt petition as if we are deciding a lis between the parties. The only course open

¶33

6 33-CP-107-2017

¶34

for us is to accept the statement made in afdavit in reply on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 that the respondents are seeking eight weeks time for making the payment of Rs.40,000/- as an undertaking to this Court and disposing of the writ petition by accepting the statement as undertaking to this Court. The Contempt Petition is disposed of.

¶35

We further make it clear that in case the petitioner is having any grievance specifying the details of his pay fxation, he is at liberty to approach the Chief Executive Ofcer, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani by way of representation to that efect. If such representation is submitted by the petitioner, the Chief Executive Ofcer, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani to decide the same expeditiously, needless to state on the merits of the representation.

¶36

[ ANIL S. KILOR ] [ PRASANNA B. VARALE ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶37

mta

Mohd. Yusuf Mohd. Ibrahim v. Sushil Khodwekar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Yusuf Mohd. Ibrahim v. Sushil Khodwekar and 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

Kanta Navnath Lanke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jayshree Vishwanath Bhale and Others Vs I a Kundan the State of Maharashtra through Secretary Women and Child Development Department and or

Afshan Anjum Mahammad Farid through Father Mahammad Farid Mahamad Husain Vs Pawan Vishnudas Chandak

Bhima Mahadeo Kedar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Minakshi Raghunath Bari and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Keshav Vishramji Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others