Disposed

Deelip D.Chavan and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC5 Aug 2019CP/261/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court heard two contempt petitions regarding non-compliance of an order directing fixation of pay under the 4th, 5th and 6th Pay Commissions. The Court directed the Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, to undertake the pay fixation exercise after hearing parties and pass an appropriate order.

What did the court decide?

Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, directed to hear parties and undertake pay fixation exercise and pass appropriate order within eight weeks.

Deelip D.Chavan and Ors. Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

16-CP-214-18.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 214 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7410 OF 2005

¶4

Madhukar Shrawan Patil and Others

¶5

..PETITIONERS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Maharashtra and Others

¶8

..RESPONDENTS

¶9

WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 261 OF 2018 IN

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 1420 OF 2002

¶11

Deelip Dangalrao Chavan and Others

¶12

..PETITIONERS

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

State of Maharashtra and Others

¶15

..RESPONDENTS

¶16

Mr. S.P. Brahme, Advocate for petitioners Ms. R.P. Gaur, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 Mr. A.G. Talhar, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 to 6

¶17

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND R.G. AVACHAT, JJ. DATED : 05^th AUGUST, 2019

¶18

PER COURT :

¶19

Contempt Petition No. 261 of 2018 was not on board. As both

¶20

contempt petitions raises a common grievance of non-compliance of order of

¶21

this Court, same is also taken up for hearing.

¶22

1 / 4

¶23

16-CP-214-18.odt

¶24

Heard Mr. Brahme, learned Counsel for petitioners in both contempt petitions. The grievance of these petitioners was of non-compliance of order of this Court dated 11^nd June, 2017 in Writ Petition Nos. 7410 of 2005 and 1420 of 2002. Our attention was invited to order dated 11^th June, 2017. It was the submission of Mr. Brahme that first clause of order, whereby respondent – institute was directed to fix pay and allowances of petitioners as prescribed by 4^th , 5^th and 6^th Pay Commission with effect from 01^st January, 1986, 01^st January, 1996 and 01^st January, 2006 respectively and pay them the arrears thereof in respect of the period of three years preceding the respective dates of filing of the said writ petitions till they were serving with the respondent – institute, is not duly complied with. Mr. Brahme invited our attention to the representation dated 01^st November, 2017 submitted by these petitioners to the principal, as well the documents placed on record at page nos. 137, 139 and 141 which are in respect of petitioner – Madhukar S. Patil and there are similar representations by other petitioners. It was the submission of Mr. Brahme that respondent – institute failed to undertake the exercise of pay fixation of these petitioners and respondent – institute though states that order of this Court is complied, it is a partial compliance.

¶25

Per contra, Mr. Talhar, learned Counsel for respondent – institute and more particularly for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 vehemently submitted that in the order of this Court, Division Bench of this Court specifically observed

¶26

2 / 4

¶27

16-CP-214-18.odt

¶28

that petitioners cannot claim arrears of pay and allowance for a period of three years preceding the respective dates of filing writ petition, since the claim beyond three years would be barred by limitation. Mr. Talhar, learned Counsel then submitted that representation dated 01^st November, 2017 was specifically replied by reply dated 21^st November, 2017, wherein respondent – institute informed petitioners that the claim, as put forth by these petitioners, is not admissible. It was the submission of Mr. Talhar that the claim put forth by these petitioners is beyond the benefit granted by this Court. It was also the submission of Mr. Talhar that exercise of appropriate pay fixation of these petitioners and the benefits consequently for the 5^th and 6^th Pay Commission be undertaken by an independent authority like Director of Technical Education or Joint Director of Technical Education. It is also submitted that in the earlier round, exercise of quantification of amount was done by Court Commissioner i.e. Joint Director of Technical Education.

¶29

Perusal of order of this Court dated 11^th July, 2017 shows that this Court was not inclined to accept the calculations made by the Court Commissioner, As such, Division Bench of this Court was pleased to observe thus “in the circumstances, the calculations made by Court Commissioner cannot be acted upon”. Now, as there is dispute in so far as exercise of pay fixation, in our opinion, we deem it appropriate that such an exercise be undertaken by Director of Technical Education, Mahrashtra State, needless to

¶30

3 / 4

¶31

16-CP-214-18.odt

¶32

state by giving an equal opportunity of hearing to parties i.e. petitioners and Respondent Nos. 4 to 7.

¶33

Both learned Counsel for respective parties submit that the parties would appear before Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State on or before 19^th August, 2019. Director of Technical Education is accordingly directed to hear the parties, who would remain present before him on or before 19^th August, 2019 and pass appropriate order within eight weeks from appearance of parties. Director of Technical Education also to inform the decision so taken to the parties viz. petitioners and respondent – management institute. Needless to state that parties having grievance of decision taken by Director of Technical Education, will be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy as available under law to challenge the said decision. With these directions, both the contempt petitions are disposed of.

¶34

SSD

¶35

4 / 4

Deelip D.Chavan and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deelip D.Chavan and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahanagarpalika Prathamik Shikshak Sangh Jalgaon through Its President Gangaram Sitaram Fegade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs Vikrant Rupendra Kale and Others

Raghunath Ramesh Yendait Vs J P Gupta and Others

Madhukar Shrawan Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sandip Vinod Karhale Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Others

Mahyco Research Foundation Trust Jalna Thro Authorized Signatory and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others