Balasaheb Trimbak Shinde vs Shri Bhausaheb B Chavhan

Manasi Sudhir Mane Alias Aruna Yaswant Patil ...Petitioner Versus Eknath S. Ambokar ...Respondent AND (23) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 377 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2135 OF 2022

¶59

Santosh S/o Maruti Salvi ...Petitioner Versus

¶60

Mahesh Jagannath Chothe & Anr. ...Respondents AND (24) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 378 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2742 OF 2021

¶61

Dnyaneshwar S/o Yadavrao Kale ...Petitioner Versus

¶62

Bhausaheb B. Chavhan ...Respondent

¶63

4 of 10

¶64

Gauri Gaekwad

¶65

6 to 25 & 29.CP-348-2025.odt

¶66

AND

¶67

(25) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 383 OF 2025

¶68

IN

¶69

WRIT PETITION NO. 2120 OF 2022

¶70

Jitendra Kautik Desale ...Petitioner Versus Bhausaheb B. Chavhan ...Respondent

¶71

AND (29) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 452 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6137 OF 2022

¶72

Raju Narayan Patil ...Petitioner Versus Bhausaheb B. Chavhan ...Respondent ----

¶73

Mr. Arvind G. Ambetkar a/w. Mr. Sandeep Gupta for the Petitioner in all Petitions.

¶74

Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. GP for the Respondent – State in WP/348/2025.

¶75

Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent – State in WP/349/2025. Mr. S.B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent – State in WP/352/2025. Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for the Respondent – State in WP/353/2025. Ms. Priyanka Chavan, AGP for the Respondent – State in WP/358/2025.

¶76

Mr. A.K. Naik, AGP for the Respondent – State in WP/359/2025. Mr. A. R. Deolekar, AGP for the Respondent – State in WP/360/2025.

¶77

Ms. P.M. Joshi Deshpande, AGP for the Respondent – State in WP/367/2025. Ms. P.N. Diwan, AGP for the Respondent – State in WP/368/2025. Mr. K.S. Thorat, B Panel Counsel for the Respondent – State in WP/369/2025.

¶78

Mr. N.C. Walimbe, Addl. GP for the Respondent – State in WP/370/2025. Mr. S. P. Kamble, AGP for the Respondent – State in WP/371/2025. Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for the Respondent – State in WP/372/2025. Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. GP a/w. Mr. A.K. Naik, AGP for the Respondent – State in WP/373/2025, WP/374/2025, WP/375/2025,

¶79

5 of 10

¶80

Gauri Gaekwad

¶81

6 to 25 & 29.CP-348-2025.odt

¶82

WP/376/2025, WP/377/2025, WP/378/2025 and WP/383/2025.

¶83

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ. DATE : 16^th JULY, 2025

¶84

P.C. :-

¶85

On 11^th April, 2022, this Court had delivered an order in Writ Petition No.8990 of 2021 along with connected matters

¶86

( Smt. Manasi Sudhir Mane @ Aruna Yashwant Patil v/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ), wherein the Writ Bench concluded in paragraphs nos.10 to 14, as under :

¶87

The Petitions are, therefore, partly allowed and following directions are issued.

¶88

Respondent No.3 or Deputy Director of Respondent No.4, as the case may be, are directed to decide case of each of the Petitioners regarding applicability of the old pension scheme as per Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and Maharashtra Civil Services (Computation of Pensions) Rules-1984 and General Provident Fund Scheme by keeping in view law laid down by this Court in its various judgments including the judgments referred to in the body of the judgment.

¶89

If it is so found by Respondent No.3 or Deputy Director of Respondent No.4, as the case may be, that the Petitioners are governed by old pension scheme, the Respondent No.3 or Respondent No.4, as the case may be, shall issue necessary directions to not deduct any amount

¶90

6 of 10

¶91

Gauri Gaekwad

¶92

6 to 25 & 29.CP-348-2025.odt

¶93

from the salary payable to the Petitioners governed by the old pension scheme for the purpose of its applying to the DCPS or NPS, and shall also issue necessary directions for refunding of theses amounts to those petitioners from whose salary, same are deducted, within four weeks of the date on which such determination is made.

¶94

In case it is found that the Petitioners are governed by the old pension scheme necessary directions shall be issued by Respondent No.3 or Deputy Director of Respondent No.4, as the case may be, to open GPF accounts in the names of the Petitioners found eligible for same, within four weeks of the date on which their eligibility is determined.

¶95

Each of the Petitioners to appear before the Respondent No.3 or Deputy Director of Respondent No.4, as the case may be, on 18^th April, 2022.

¶96

The grievance of the Petitioners is that the Authorities, namely, the Education Officer (Secondary) and the Deputy Director of Education, as the case may be, have refused to grant them a hearing, despite a specific direction by the Writ Court to grant them such a hearing on 18^th April, 2022. Naturally, without such a hearing, no order could be passed. Furthermore, the said Authorities are yet to implement the order of this Court dated 11^th April 2022, despite the Court having granted a time frame of four weeks to decide the Petitioners' representations, whether for the Old Pension

¶97

Gauri Gaekwad 7 of 10

¶98

6 to 25 & 29.CP-348-2025.odt

¶99

Scheme or the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme.

¶100

Prima facie, the disobedience of our order is visible.

¶101

However, the learned Addl. GP and the learned AGPs, on instructions, submit that the Accused-Respondents have the highest regard and respect for the orders of all Courts and have no intention, to disobey any order. An unconditional oral apology is tendered, along with a statement that the Petitioners may appear before the concerned Authorities at Kolhapur, Ratnagiri, Nashik, etc., as the case may be, on 1^st August, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. One by one, the concerned Authorities would receive their written submissions and close the matter for passing reasoned orders, on or before 31^st August, 2025. If there is any impediment and the said Authority finds itself short of time, a Civil Application would be filed in this Court seeking extension of time, with due notice to the Petitioners. We are assured that a reason for filing a second Contempt Petition, would not arise.

¶102

The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners would tender their written notes of submissions on

¶103

8 of 10

¶104

Gauri Gaekwad

¶105

6 to 25 & 29.CP-348-2025.odt

¶106

1^st August, 2025 and they would not engage in any arguments with any of the Officers.

¶107

Considering the above statement made by the learned Addl. GP and the learned AGPs, on instructions, we are not issuing notice in these matters. All these matters are disposed off .

¶108

We clarify that the aforesaid statement is being recorded only to grant one more opportunity to the concerned Accused/Contemnors to comply with the order passed by the Writ Bench. We hope that they would not give any reason to the Petitioners to file a second Contempt Petition.

¶109

Needless to state, a reasoned order would be passed by the said Authorities on the merits of the cases of the Petitioners, on or before 31^st August, 2205.

¶110

Copies of the orders would be served upon these Petitioners and their Management, through email. We, therefore, direct these Petitioners to write their correct email addresses in their

¶111

9 of 10

¶112

Gauri Gaekwad

¶113

6 to 25 & 29.CP-348-2025.odt

¶114

written submissions to be tendered on 1^st August, 2025. This would also facilitate easy correspondence between them in these proceedings.

¶115

It goes without saying that in the event, in any case, the concerned Authority has already arrived at a decision and the same is still not communicated to the Petitioners or the Management, the same shall be communicated within a period of 15 days from today.

¶116

(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶117

10 of 10

¶118

Gauri Gaekwad

Balasaheb Trimbak Shinde v. Shri Bhausaheb B Chavhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balasaheb Trimbak Shinde v. Shri Bhausaheb B Chavhan

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

Mayura Vishal Shelke and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Sec. Higher and Terchnical Education and Ors.

Jayashree Laxman Lavate vs the State of Maharashtra Thru the Prin. Secretary, Dept. of School Edu. and Ors.

Dr Neha Manish Munot vs the President Sinhgad Technical Educaation and Ors.

Mayura Vishal Shelke and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Sec. Higher and Terchnical Education and Ors.

Eknath Laxman Hadkar Since Decd Thru Lhrs and Ors. vs Collector and Deputy Director for Rehabilitation , Kolhapur District and Ors.

Savita Amit Gujar vs Deputy Director of Education Pune Division and Ors.