Laxman Kishanrao Kadam v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONT. PETITION NO.:396 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO.:4870 OF 2019 Taramati Jawarlal Rathod
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Ad Another WITH CONT. PETITION NO.:121 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO.:4869 OF 2019 Bajirao Shivajirao Yadav
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another WITH CONT. PETITION NO.:103 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO.:4884 OF 2019 Mahadev Gangadharapa Nagare
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another WITH CONT. PETITION NO.:123 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO.:4880 OF 2019 Ganpat Champat Ingole
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another WITH CONT. PETITION NO.:104 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO.:4877 OF 2019 Laxman Kishanrao Kadam
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
WITH CONT. PETITION NO.:105 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO.:4871 OF 2019 Balaji Baburao Jain
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another *** Advocate for petitioners : Mr. M.V. Ghatge h/f. Mr. S.S. Gangakhedkar AGP for respondent/State : Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya Advocate for respondent no. 2 : Mr. S.N. Janakwade *** CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ARUN R. PEDNEKER, JJ.
DATED : JULY 29, 2022.
PER COURT :
1.
We have perused the order passed by this Court and since the Municipal Council desires to purge the contempt, the Chief Officer (CO), Municipal Council, Purna, respondent no. 2 herein, is personally present in the Court.
2.
It is informed that around Rs.30 lakhs out of Rs.52 lakhs arrears of these petitioners and similarly placed other employees have already been disbursed and recently an amount of Rs.80,000/- per petitioner has been paid on 25th July 2022. According to the second respondent, an amount of around Rs.22 lakhs is to be paid and as per the petitioners, considering the interest component, the amount would be around Rs.30 lakhs.
3.
The learned advocate representing respondent no. 2 - CO
places a chart on record, which is marked as 'X' for identification. The chart indicates the list of 12 such beneficiaries, out of which these 6 petitioners are before this Court. It is conceded that an amount of Rs.22,13,892/- is outstanding and an interest component of 6% will have to be added to the calculation. 4.
On instructions, the learned advocate for respondent no. 2 initially stated that the amount will be paid within six months and then, he stated that it would be paid within three months. 5.
In order to ensure that there are no further contempt petitions and as we do not expect the remaining 6 persons or even these six petitioners, to keep knocking the doors of this Court and spend on litigation, we record the statement of respondent no. 2 that these 12 beneficiaries, including these 6 petitioners, would be paid their residual amount, on or before 30th November 2022. 6.
The Municipal Council would be at liberty to recover outstanding taxes, water charges etc. from the localities and ensure that the funds are generated, so as to clear the dues of these persons, who are pensioners.
7.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the statement has been recorded, the petitioners are satisfied and are hopeful that this would not require them to once again approach this Court.
8.
In view of the above, by recording the statement of respondent no. 2, who is present in the Court, the contempt is
purged and these petitions are disposed off.
8.
In order to simplify things, we direct respondent no. 2 to ensure that the dues of these 12 persons, including these petitioners, would be paid by equated monthly installments, preferably by the third week of each month. The entire amounts would, thus, be paid till 30th November, 2022. If any of these petitioners or similarly situated persons are compelled to approach this Court by filing contempt petitions, we would consider the conduct of respondent no. 2 as amounting to aggravated contempt. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER J.] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.] SSC/