This contempt petition was disposed of. The court accepted an apology from the respondent and accepted an undertaking to comply with a prior order and extend benefits to other employees within four months, stating the grievance was redressed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Contempt Petition No.872/2018 (( 1 ))
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.872 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8535 OF 2011
Rameshchand s/o Chaturbhuj Sethi and another
... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others
... RESPONDENTS
Shri N.K. Chaudhari, Advocate for petitioners Mrs. G.L. Deshpande, A.G.P. for State Shri H.K. Munde, Advocate for respondent No.5
CORAM: PRASANNA B. VARALE AND R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.
DATED : 14th AUGUST, 2019.
ORAL ORDER :
Heard Mr. Chaudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
By expressing displeasure for the non-responsive approach by the respondent authority, the simple notice was issued to respondent No.3 Divisional Commissioner, vide order dated 18/7/2019.
Contempt Petition No.872/2018 (( 2 ))
Mumbai. It is submitted in the affidavit-in-reply that, the proposal submitted through the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Jalna was received by the respondent No.2 and in turn, the respondent No.2 communicated the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Jalna to take appropriate action in view of the order of this Court, dated 13/11/2017 and to pay increments and pensionary benefits by counting five years initial service which was not counted due to the order dated 7/7/2004. A copy of the communication dated 3/8/2019 forwarded to the Chief Officer is also placed on record at Annexure R-2-I. The respondent No.2 further stated in the affidavit-in-reply that “I again tender my unconditional apology. This respondent has utmost respect for the Hon'ble Court and duty bound to obey the orders of Hon'ble Court.”
Contempt Petition No.872/2018
(( 3 ))
employees, as early as possible, and not later than four months from today. The statement made on behalf of the respondent No.5 is accepted as an undertaking to this Court. Mr. Chaudhari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submitted that, as the petitioners have waited for some period, they would wait for some more period as requested by the respondent No.5.
(R.G. AVACHAT) (PRASANNA B. VARALE) JUDGE JUDGE
fmp/-
Rameshchand s/o Chaturbhuj Sethi and another
The State of Maharashtra & others
Prasanna B. Varale
R.G. Avachat
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
