Dismissed

Jagdish Rambhau Lodhikhan and 11 Ors. v. Union of India and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC3 May 2023CONPW/69/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contempt petition against the High Court's modified order is disposed of. The court held that the merits of the declaration of ineligibility for regularisation cannot be canvassed in contempt and directed the petitioners to challenge the departmental order separately.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners allowed liberty to assail the order holding them ineligible for regularisation in the appropriate forum.

Jagdish Rambhau Lodhikhan and 11 Ors. Vs Union of India and… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

10.69.19-conpw.docx

¶2

TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

Digitally signed by TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2023.05.04 11:43:19 +0530

¶5

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.69 OF 2019 IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 1561 OF 2005

¶7

Jagdish Rambhau Lodhikhan & Ors.

¶8

….. Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Union of India & Ors.

¶11

….. Respondents

¶12

Ms. Fauzia T. Bukhari for the Petitioners Mr. Neel Helekar for the Respondents

¶13

CORAM: S.V.GANGAPURWALA, ACJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶14

DATED : MAY 3, 2023

¶15

P.C.

¶16

The contempt is filed against the order of the Tribunal modified by this court. The Petitioners had sought regularisation.

¶17

The Tribunal directed the department to consider the case of the Petitioners, if the Petitioners are eligible to be regularised. The High Court held that the vacancies are available and thereafter directed the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioners for regularisation. The court directed the Respondents to comply with the directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal with modifications i.e., the vacancies are available. The Respondents have come to the conclusion that the Petitioners are ineligible as such

Mohite

1/2

10.69.19-conpw.docx

cannot be regularised. Though the learned counsel for the Petitioners has canvassed his submissions as to how the order holding the Petitioners ineligible for regularisation is incorrect, the same cannot be gone into the contempt petition. The Petitioners may challenge the order passed by the department.

¶22

In light of that, Contempt Petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioners to assail the order holding the Petitioners ineligible for regularisation in accordance with law. In that event, the forum shall consider the time spent in prosecuting the present petition. In that event, all contentions are kept open qua the order challenging the order holding the Petitioners as ineligible.

¶23

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J)

¶24

(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶25

2/2

¶26

Mohite

Jagdish Rambhau Lodhikhan and 11 Ors. v. Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Rambhau Lodhikhan and 11 Ors. v. Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suryakant S/O Gulabrao Bagul Vs the State of Maharashtra , Dept. of Tribal Development and Ors.

Bhila S/O Dharma Bagul Vs the State of Maharashtra , Dept. of Tribal Development and Ors.

Hil Ex-Employees Weelfare Association and Anr. Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization through Union of India and Ors.

Ganesh Shankarrao Mhalankar Vs Board of Apprenticeship Training (Western Region), Mumbai and 6 Ors.

Ganesh Shankarrao Mhalankar Vs Board of Apprenticeship Training (Western Region), Mumbai 4 Ors.

Ganesh Shankarrao Mhalankar Vs Board of Apprenticeship Training (Western Region) Mumbai and 5 Ors.