Tukaram Mahadev Gurav vs Shri Mahesh Jagannath — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Tukaram Mahadev Gurav vs Shri Mahesh Jagannath — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No contempt notice issued; all the Contempt Petitions disposed of on the strength of the unconditional oral apology tendered on instructions by the Accused-Respondents and their assurances. Petitioners to appear before the concerned Authorities at Kolhapur, Ratnagiri, Nashik, etc., on 1st August, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. and tender written submissions (without engaging in arguments); the Authorities to receive the submissions one by one and pass reasoned orders on the merits on or before 31st August, 2025 (printed as '2205'); any extension of time only by Civil Application in this Court with due notice to the Petitioners; copies of the orders to be served upon the Petitioners and their Management through email; and any decision already arrived at but not communicated to be communicated within 15 days.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Authorities (the Education Officer (Secondary) and the Deputy Director of Education, as the case may be) disobeyed the Writ Court's order dated 11th April, 2022 by refusing the Petitioners a hearing on 18th April, 2022 and failing to implement the order, including deciding the Old Pension Scheme representations, within the granted time frame of four weeks.

Court's answer

Prima facie, the disobedience of this Court's order dated 11th April, 2022 (in Writ Petition No. 8990 of 2021 and connected matters) is visible.

Ratio / Principle

An unconditional oral apology was tendered on behalf of the Accused-Respondents, along with a statement that the Petitioners may appear before the concerned Authorities at Kolhapur, Ratnagiri, Nashik, etc.

Key takeaways

One by one, the concerned Authorities would receive the Petitioners' written submissions and close the matters for passing reasoned orders on or before 31st August, 2025.ratio¶101
The Petitioners may appear before the concerned Authorities at Kolhapur, Ratnagiri, Nashik, etc., on 1st August, 2025 at 11:00 a.m.ratio¶101
If the concerned 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.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Batch of twenty-one Contempt Petitions (Nos. 348, 349, 352, 353, 358, 359, 360, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 383 and 452 of 2025), Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, alleging disobedience of the Writ Bench's order dated 11.04.2022 in Writ Petition No. 8990 of 2021 (Smt. Manasi Sudhir Mane @ Aruna Yashwant Patil v/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.) and connected matters. That order had partly allowed the petitions and directed the Education Officer (Secondary)/Deputy Director of Education to hear the petitioners on 18.04.2022 and decide, within four weeks, the applicability of the old pension scheme under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, the Maharashtra Civil Services (Computation of Pensions) Rules-1984 and the General Provident Fund Scheme, with refund of DCPS/NPS deductions and opening of GPF accounts. The petitioners' grievance was refusal of hearing and non-implementation. Holding that prima facie disobedience of its order was visible, but recording the unconditional oral apology tendered on instructions by the State (Addl. GP/AGPs) and the assurance that the authorities hold court orders in the highest regard, the Division Bench (Ravindra V. Ghuge and Gautam A. Ankhad, JJ.) declined to issue contempt notice and disposed of all the matters: petitioners to tender written submissions before the concerned Authorities at Kolhapur, Ratnagiri, Nashik, etc., on 01.08.2025 at 11:00 a.m. without oral arguments; reasoned orders on the merits on or before 31.08.2025 (printed as '2205'); extension of time, if needed, only by Civil Application with due notice to the petitioners; orders to be served by email; and any decision already arrived at to be communicated within 15 days. The Court expressed the hope that no second Contempt Petition would be necessitated.

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

Digitally signed by GAURI GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD AMIT Date: GAEKWAD 2025.07.19 12:25:25 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(6) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 348 OF 2025 IN

WRIT PETITION NO. 2162 OF 2022

Vandana Balkrushna Shigwan @ Rutuja Rejendra Londhe ….Petitioner Versus

Mahesh J. Chothe ….Respondent AND (7) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 349 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2168 OF 2022

Ilahi Rasul Nadaf ..Petitioner Versus

Mahesh J. Chothe & Anr. ...Respondents AND (8) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 352 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2137 OF 2022

Pandharinath Parashram Sangamnere ...Petitioner Versus

Bhausaheb B. Chavhan ...Respondent AND (9) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 353 OF 2025 IN

WRIT PETITION NO. 9242 OF 2021

Dhiraj Rajaram Savkar ...Petitioner Versus Bhausaheb B. Chavhan ...Respondent

AND

(10) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 358 OF 2025 IN

WRIT PETITION NO. 8994 OF 2021

1 of 10

Gauri Gaekwad

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

Balasaheb Trimbak Shinde ...Petitioner Versus Bhausaheb B. Chavhan ...Respondent

AND (11) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 359 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2052 OF 2022

Jagannath Govind Autade ...Petitioner Versus Bhausaheb B. Chavhan ...Respondent

AND (12) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 360 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 13081 OF 2022

Yadav Balkrushna Sonwane ...Petitioner Versus

Bhausaheb B. Chavhan ...Respondent AND (13) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 367 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2133 OF 2022

Vasudeo Ningappa Washikar ...Petitioner Versus Mahesh Jagannath Chothe ...Respondent

AND (14) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 368 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2134 OF 2022

Tukaram Mahadev Gurav ...Petitioner Versus Mahesh Jagannath Chote ...Respondent AND (15) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 369 OF 2025 IN

Gauri Gaekwad 2 of 10

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 2126 OF 2022

Prakash S/o Dasharath Jadhav ...Petitioner Versus

Bhausaheb B. Chavhan ...Respondent

AND (16) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 370 OF 2025 IN

WRIT PETITION NO. 2129 OF 2022

Sudam Narayan Bhadane ...Petitioner Versus

Bhausaheb B. Chavhan ...Respondent

AND (17) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 371 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2121 OF 2022

Mahendra Shantilal Shewale ...Petitioner Versus

Bhausaheb B. Chavhan ...Respondent AND (18) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 372 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2155 OF 2022

Arundhati Vinay Chavan ...Petitioner Versus

Eknath S. Ambokar

...Respondent

AND (19) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 373 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2147 OF 2025

Prashant Mahadev Chopade ...Petitioner Versus Eknath S. Ambokar ...Respondent

AND

(20) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 374 OF 2025

Gauri Gaekwad 3 of 10

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

IN

WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2022

Ashok S/o Appaso Gurav ...Petitioner Versus

Eknath S. Ambokar ...Respondent

AND (21) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 375 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3770 OF 2022

Sarita Mahadev Gurav Alias Sarita Chandrakant Gurav ...Petitioner Versus

Eknath S. Ambokar

...Respondent AND (22) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 376 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8990 OF 2021

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

Santosh S/o Maruti Salvi ...Petitioner Versus

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

Dnyaneshwar S/o Yadavrao Kale ...Petitioner Versus

Bhausaheb B. Chavhan ...Respondent

4 of 10

Gauri Gaekwad

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

AND

(25) CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 383 OF 2025

IN

WRIT PETITION NO. 2120 OF 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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,

5 of 10

Gauri Gaekwad

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

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

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

P.C. :-

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

( 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 :

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

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.

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

6 of 10

Gauri Gaekwad

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Gauri Gaekwad 7 of 10

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

Scheme or the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme.

Prima facie, the disobedience of our order is visible.

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.

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

8 of 10

Gauri Gaekwad

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

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

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 .

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.

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.

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

9 of 10

Gauri Gaekwad

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

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

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.

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

10 of 10

Gauri Gaekwad