← Library
Bombay High CourtCP/500/2015disposed off

Kiran Ramlal Thole v. Deepak Kapoor And Another

2025-12-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice N. B. Suryawanshi,Hon'Ble Justice Vaishali Patil-Jadhav2 pages

2025:BHC-AUG:35981-DB {1} 9-CP-500-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONT. PETITION NO. 500 OF 2015 IN WP/5949/2014 Kiran Ramlal Thole ....Petitioner

VERSUS

Deepak Kapoor And Another .....Respondents .....

Mr. Anandsingh Bayas, Advocate for the Petitioner Petitioner/Party-in-person is present Mr. A.R. Kale, AGP for State .......

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, JJ.

DATE : 08th DECEMBER, 2025 ORDER :

1.

Petitioner/Party-in-person is present in the Court. Learned advocate Shri. Anandsingh Bayas submits that, petitioner wants to argue his case and therefore, he has returned the papers to the petitioner. Petitioner confirms the said fact. Hence, appearance of learned advocate Shri. Anandsingh Bayas is discharged. 2.

By order dated 12.06.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 5949 of 2014, this Court after considering the case of the petitioner for granting him parity for fixing his pay under 157(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 as was done in the cases of Shri. Bhagyawant Punde

{2} 9-CP-500-2015 Ramdas Kisanrao Patil and Shri. S.R. Sanap, directed the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner and take appropriate decision within two months from the date of the order. 3.

After passing of this order, the pay scale granted to Shri. Ramdas Kisanrao Patil and Shri. S.R. Sanap was withdrawn and the request of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 06.08.2024. Petitioner has challenged the said decision by filing Writ Petition No. 8567 of 2025, which is pending.

4.

Petitioner tried to argue on the merits of the said decision dated 06.08.2024. We are not inclined to go into the merits of decision taken by the respondents. Since by taking decision on 06.08.2024, respondents have decided the request of the petitioner, they have complied with the directions issued by this Court. The contempt petition is therefore disposed of.

(VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) Bhagyawant Punde