Dismissed

The President, Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha and Anr. v. Rajendra Maruti Patil and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Sept 2021WP/883/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge writ petition dismissed the challenge to an order directing the petitioners to pay emoluments for two months to the respondent within 10 days. The court held the amount was small and mere reinstatement on the main order precluded prejudice.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; payment of emoluments ordered within 10 days.

The President, Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha and Anr. Vs Rajendra Maruti Patil and Anr. — Bombay HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

8wp883-21.odt

¶2

¶3

Digitally signed by PRASHANTVILASRANE PRASHANTVILAS RANEDate:2021.10.01 16:20:18 +0530

¶4

Pvr

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 883 of 2021

¶7

The President, Rajarshi ShahuShikshan
Sanstha & Anr.… Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Rajendra Maruti Patil & Anr.… Respondents
 ----

¶10

Mr.Sudhir C. Halli, for the Petitioners.

¶11

Mr.Rahul B.Khot, for Respondent no.1.

¶12

Mr.P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Mr. A. P. Vanarse, AGP for the
State.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1.This is a petition filed challenging the order dated 15 January
2021 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Kolhapur,
on a contempt application filed by respondent no.1.

¶15

2.The contempt application was filed by respondent no.1
contending non compliance of the order dated 5 January 2019 passed
by the Tribunal to the extent of non payment of emoluments to him for
the period 15 February 2019 to 16 April 2019, which were ordered to be
paid to respondent no.1 by the Tribunal.

¶16

Admittedly, the orders of the tribunal directing reinstatement of

¶17

respondent no.1 came to be complied by the petitioners as respondent
no.1 was reinstated.

¶18

1 8wp883-21.odt

¶19

Pvr

¶20

In my opinion, the amount directed to be paid by the tribunal is a small amount, which is emolument for a period of two months only. As respondent no.1 was reinstated, no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the petitioners to make payment of such amount to respondent no.1, this more particularly when the main order of the tribunal on respondent no.1’s appeal itself has been implemented.

¶21

I thus find no merit in the contention as urged on behalf of the petitioners in this petition that such amount be not paid to respondent No.1 The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶22

6.The amount as directed by the tribunal, be paid within 10 days
from today, there shall not be any further extension. In the event, the
amount is not paid, the respondent no.1 is permitted to initiate
appropriate proceedings.

The President, Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha and Anr. v. Rajendra Maruti Patil and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The President, Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha and Anr. v. Rajendra Maruti Patil and Anr.

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

Bombay Gymkhana Limited Vs the Union of India , Ministry of Finance and 3 Ors.

Om Drishian International Ltd. through Itts M.D. Rakesh Bansal Vs Additional Directgor Directorate of Revewnue Intelligence Mumbai Zonal Unit and Anr.

Vijay Karbhari Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra through Addl. Chief Secretary and Anr.

Bharati Defence and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Andaman and Nicobar Administration Port Blair

Tsur Ben David Vs Cqm Cooling Quality Management Ltd. and 3 Ors.

The President, Rajashri Shahu Shikshan Sanstha and Anr. Vs Rajendra Maruti Patil and Ors.