Disposed¶37

Omeshwari Sukhlal Bharsakale v. Annasaheb T Pathare President

Bombay HC26 Mar 2025CP/174/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition dismissed from consideration as not maintainable; execution of School Tribunal order to be sought before the Tribunal itself under Sections 11 and 13 of the MEPS Act 1977; entertaining contempt would convert High Court into Executing Court; Rule granted but interim relief specifically refused in management's Writ Petition No.1825 of 2025; reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits; School Tribunal Pune order dated 11.11.2024; Mohammad Salam Anamul Haque v. S. A. Azmi 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 249; Ahemadi Siddiqui Abdul Majid WP 2036 of 2022; Manish Pitale J.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to institute appropriate execution proceedings before the Tribunal, which shall be decided expeditiously and in accordance with law. ¶37

Omeshwari Sukhlal Bharsakale vs Annasaheb T Pathare President — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to institute appropriate execution proceedings before the Tribunal, which shall be decided expeditiously and in accordance with law.

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents are liable to be punished for contempt for not complying with the directions contained in the School Tribunal's order dated 11th November 2024, notwithstanding this Court's specific refusal of interim relief in Writ Petition No.1825 of 2025, or whether the petitioner ought instead to pursue execution of the Tribunal's order before the Tribunal itself under Sections 11 and 13 of the MEPS Act.

¶27

Court's answer

In similar circumstances, entertaining contempt proceedings would amount to converting this Court into an Executing Court, despite the statutory provisions under Sections 11 and 13 of the MEPS Act providing sufficient opportunity to the aggrieved petitioner to approach the School Tribunal for execution of the Tribunal's order in its entirety.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

The contention raised on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 was accepted in the light of the settled position of law; since this Court had specifically refused interim relief in the management's writ petition, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps for execution of the Tribunal's order and can invoke the statutory provisions (Sections 11 and 13, MEPS Act) to ensure that the relief granted by the Tribunal inures to her benefit in its entirety.

¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Manish Pitale, J.; decision dated 10th June 2025) disposed of Contempt Petition No.174 of 2025 filed by Omeshwari Sukhlal Bharsak against Annasaheb T. Pathare & Ors., alleging non-compliance, in its entirety, with the judgment and order dated 11th November 2024 of the School Tribunal at Pune, by which her appeal was allowed, termination of service was set aside, and she was granted reinstatement to her original post with full back wages and consequential benefits, with directions to be operated within 30 days. The management had filed Writ Petition No.1825 of 2025 challenging the Tribunal's order; on 13th February 2025 the Court granted Rule and specifically refused interim relief. Relying on Mohammad Salam Anamul Haque Vs. S. A. Azmi, 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 249; Smt. Ahemadi Siddiqui Abdul Majid Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, Writ Petition No.2036 of 2022 (dated 20.06.2022); and the order dated 08th May 2024 in Contempt Petition No.574 of 2023, the Court held that entertaining contempt in such circumstances would amount to converting it into an Executing Court, since Sections 11 and 13 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act) provide sufficient opportunity to execute the Tribunal's order through the Tribunal itself. The petition was disposed of with liberty to institute execution proceedings before the Tribunal, to be decided expeditiously and in accordance with law.

¶1

26.CP.174.2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 174 OF 2025 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1825 OF 2025

¶5

Omeshwari Sukhlal Bharsak ...Petitioner Versus

¶6

Annasaheb T. Pathare & Ors.

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6485 OF 2025

¶9

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1825 OF 2025

¶10

¶11

 Mr. Dnyaneshwar W. Bhosale, for Petitioner.

¶12

SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI

¶13

Mr. Sagar A. Mane, for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶14

Ms. Vaishali S. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent No.7 – State.

¶15

¶16

Digitally signed by SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI Date: 2025.06.11 13:32:18 +0530

¶17

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : 10^th JUNE 2025.

¶18

P. C. :

¶19

This Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner on the

¶20

basis of judgment and order dated 11^th November 2024, passed by the School Tribunal at Pune, whereby an appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed, termination of her service was set aside and she was granted reinstatement to

¶21

her original post with full back wages and consequential benefits. The Tribunal directed that the directions issued in favour of the petitioner be operated within 30 within days of the order of the Tribunal.

¶22

The respondent – management filed Writ Petition No.1825 of 2025, challenging the said judgment and order of the Tribunal. On 13^th

Page1 of 3

Shrikant Malani

26.CP.174.2025.doc

February 2025, this Court granted Rule in the writ petition and specifically refused interim relief.

¶27

It is the case of the petitioner that in these circumstances, the respondents are liable to be punished for contempt as they have not complied with the directions contained in the order dated 11^th November 2024, passed by the Tribunal, even in the face of the fact that this Court specifically refused interim relief in the aforesaid writ petition. It is brought to the notice of this Court that although the petitioner was reinstated, the order of the Tribunal has not been complied with in its entirety.

¶28

In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that as per the position of law laid down by this Court in similar circumstances, the contempt petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is entitled to institute appropriate proceedings before the Tribunal under Sections 11 and 13 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act). He relies upon judgments of this Court in the case of Mohammad Salam Anamul Haque Vs.

¶29

S. A. Azmi¹ and Smt. Ahemadi Siddiqui Abdul Majid Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others² and order dated 08^th May 2024, passed in Contempt Petition No.574 of 2023, in support of the aforementioned contention.

¶30

1 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 249

¶31

2 Writ Petition No.2036 of 2022, dated 20.06.2022

Page2 of 3

Shrikant Malani

26.CP.174.2025.doc

This Court has perused the said judgment and orders. In similar circumstances, this Court has held that entertaining contempt proceedings in such circumstances would amount to converting this Court into an Executing Court, despite the fact that the statutory provisions under Sections 11 and 13 of the MEPS Act, provide sufficient opportunity to such an aggrieved petitioner to approach the School Tribunal for execution of the order of the Tribunal in its entirety.

¶36

This Court is of the opinion that the contention raised on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 deserves to be accepted in the light of the settled position of law. In the light of this Court specifically refusing interim relief in the writ petition filed by the respondent – management, it is evident that the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps for execution of the order of the Tribunal. The petitioner can invoke the aforesaid statutory provisions to ensure that the relief granted by the Tribunal in her favour inures to her benefit in its entirety.

¶37

In view of the above, the instant contempt petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to institute appropriate execution proceedings before the Tribunal, which shall be decided expeditiously and in accordance with law.

¶38

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶39

Page3 of 3

¶40

Shrikant Malani

Omeshwari Sukhlal Bharsakale v. Annasaheb T Pathare President

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omeshwari Sukhlal Bharsakale v. Annasaheb T Pathare President

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shapoorji Pallonji Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. vs Omkar Realtors and Developers Prviate Limited

State of Maharashtra through vs Smt Anandi Dharma Ambekar Deleted Name

Dilip Ashok Desai vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Aristo Pharmaceuticals Private Limited vs Pharmaceutical Institute of India Private Limited

Aristo Pharmaceuticals Private Limited vs Pharmaceutical Institute of India Private Limited

Official Liquidator of Genelec Ltd. (in Liquidation) vs B.I.F.R. (Petitioner)