Gopal Vasudeorao Arvikar And Others v. Prithviraj B P The Chief Executive Officer Parbhani And Another

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1104 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.66 OF 2020 IN WP/1954/2018 SMT. URMILA DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD AND OTHERS

VERSUS

MR. PRITHVIRAJ B. P., CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PARBHANI & ANOTHER AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO.69 OF 2020 IN WP/7871/2018 GOPAL VASUDEORAO ARVIKAR AND OTHERS

VERSUS

MR. PRITHVIRAJ B. P., CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PARBHANI & ANOTHER AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO.67 OF 2020 IN WP/13596/2018 VASANT VISHWANATH PAMPATWAR & OTHERS

VERSUS

MR. PRITHVIRAJ B. P., CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PARBHANI & ANOTHER AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO.102 OF 2022 IN WP/6377/2019 SURESH HILAL MALI AND ANOTHER

VERSUS

SMT. WANMATHI C., CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD, DHULE & ANOTHER ....

Mr S. K. Mathpati, Advocate for petitioners;

Mr S. G. Karlekar, A.G.P. for respondents/State Mr S. D. Kaldate, Advocate for Zilla Parishad, Parbhani Mr N. N. Desale, Advocate for Zilla Parishad, Dhule

(2) CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND ARUN R. PEDNEKER, JJ.

DATE : 16th September, 2022 PER COURT:

1.

These are three petitions from District Parbhani and one from District Dhule. It is undisputed that, the order which applies to these petitioners is dated 25/01/2019, passed at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.1954/2018 (Smt. Urmila Dattatrya Gaikwad & others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) and connected matters. The operative order below paragraph 8 reads as under :- "The respondent/Zilla Parishad after confirming themselves of the petitioners being District awardee teachers and awarded certificate prior to 04/09/2018 shall individually consider the case of the petitioners for additional increment as is laid down under the Govt. Resolution dated 12/12/2000. The same shall be considered on its own merits expeditiously preferably within a period of six months."

2.

In these four contempt petitions, the learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners' individual cases have been scrutinized and their claims have been rejected.

(3) 3.

In our view, this indicates compliance of the order passed by us, vide which, we had directed that the cases of all these petitioners be considered on individual basis. If their claims have been rejected and they have a grievance, they will have to challenge the said decisions independently. In these circumstances, filing contempt petitions, is no remedy. 4.

As such, these contempt petitions are disposed off, with liberty to avail of a remedy, as is permissible in law. (ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) sjk