Partly allowed

Ratan Anandrao Suradkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC21 Jun 2019CP/939/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt petition addressed non-compliance of a writ order directing authorities to treat the petitioner's suspension as service. The Court recorded that the Government complied by issuing an order treating the suspension as service and directing salary payment, and directed expeditious disbursement.

What did the court decide?

Directing authorities to effect disbursement of entitlements granted by the 13th June 2019 order within twelve weeks.

Ratan Anandrao Suradkar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

939.18cp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.939 OF 2018 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1918 OF 2018

¶6

Ratan s/o Anandrao Suradkar
Age: 57 years, Occ: Service,
R/o. Newas & Dist. Ahmednagar
Presently as
Supply Inspecting Officer
Collector office, Nandurbar

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶10

2. Rajaram Mane (present Commissioner) Age: Major, Occ: Service (commissioner), The DIvisional Commissioner, Nashik, Dist. Nashik (Revenue Branch)

¶11

3. Mr Eknath Dhavale (old commissioner) Age: Major, Occ: Service (Commissioner), The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, Dist. Nashik (Revenue Branch) Presently working as, Secretary, Water Conservation and EGS Department Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road Hutatma Rajguru Square, Nariman Point Mumbai

¶12

	( 2 )		939.18cp
`4.`	`Rahul Diwedi (present collector)` `Age: Major, Occ: Service (collector)` `The Collector, Ahmednagar` `Dist. Ahmednagar`
`5.`	`Mr Anil Kavde (old collector)` `Age: Major, Occ: Service (collector)` `The Collector, Ahmednagar` `Dist. Ahmednagar` `Presently working as` `Inspector General of Registration` `Maharashtra State Pune,` `New Administrative Building` `Ground Floor, Opposite Legislative` `Building, Pune-411001`
`6.`	`Tahsil Office (Through Thahsildar)` `Newasa, District Ahmednagar`
`7.`	`Tahsil Office (Through Thahsildar)` `Akoloe, Taluka Akole,` `District Ahmednagar`	`RESPON`	`DENTS`
`Mr M` `Ms R`	`.R. Wagh, Advocate for petitioner;` `ashmi P. Gour, A.G.P. for respondent`	`/State`
	`CORAM : PRAS` `R.G.`	`ANNA B.` `AVACHA`	`VARALE &` `T, JJ.`
`ORAL`	`DATED :` `21st` `ORDER:`	`JUNE,`	`2019`
	`Heard learned Counsel appe`	`aring`	`for the`
`peti`	`tioner.`

¶13

2.By order dated 21st December, 2018 simple notice
was issued to respondent Nos. 3 and 5 making the same

¶14

returnable on 22nd February, 2019. The grievance of the
petitioner is of non compliance of the order of this
Court dated 30th January, 2018 passed in Writ Petition
No. 1918 of 2017, whereby the respondents-authorities
were directed to take a decision on the issue raised by
the petitioner before the authorities treating his
suspension period as period of service.

¶15

3.Learned A.G.P. placed before us the

¶16

communication/order dated 13th June, 2019. Perusal of
the said order clearly shows that considering all aspects
of the matter, State Government thought it fit to treat

¶17

period of suspension of the petitioner, as period of
service. The order also refers to payment of due and
receivable amount to the petitioner against salary and
emoluments. It also states about adjustment of

¶18

suspension allowance paid to the petitioner. The order

¶19

is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. In

¶20

view of the order, we may safely say that the order of
this Court in writ petition is complied with in letter
and spirit.

¶21

4.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶22

the order is passed in favour of the petitioner, who
sought voluntarily retirement would be anxious to receive

¶23

the amount actually so as to meet his financial needs.
The request being justified one, we only direct the
authorities that the order dated 13th June, 2019 be
effected in actual disbursement to the petitioner as
expeditiously as possible and not later than twelve (12)
weeks from today.

¶24

5.With above directions, the petition is disposed
of accordingly.

¶25

[R.G. AVACHAT, J.] [PRASANNA B. VARALE,J.]

¶26

Tupe

Ratan Anandrao Suradkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratan Anandrao Suradkar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Balaji Typewriting Institute, Beed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mukund Shankarlal Dayma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shakuntala Govindrao Nade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Poonam Chagan Khedkar Vs Jai Hind Education Trust Dhule through Its Chairman and Others

Manoj Chintaman Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Satyanarayan Durgaiah Medaboina Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others