Ratan Anandrao Suradkar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

( 1 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.939 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1918 OF 2018 Ratan s/o Anandrao Suradkar Age: 57 years, Occ: Service, R/o. Newas & Dist. Ahmednagar Presently as Supply Inspecting Officer Collector office, Nandurbar PETITIONER

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 2.

Rajaram Mane (present Commissioner) Age: Major, Occ: Service (commissioner), The DIvisional Commissioner, Nashik, Dist. Nashik (Revenue Branch) 3.

Mr Eknath Dhavale (old commissioner) Age: Major, Occ: Service (Commissioner), The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, Dist. Nashik (Revenue Branch) Presently working as, Secretary, Water Conservation and EGS Department Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road Hutatma Rajguru Square, Nariman Point Mumbai

( 2 ) 4.

Rahul Diwedi (present collector) Age: Major, Occ: Service (collector) The Collector, Ahmednagar Dist. Ahmednagar 5.

Mr Anil Kavde (old collector) Age: Major, Occ: Service (collector) The Collector, Ahmednagar Dist. Ahmednagar Presently working as Inspector General of Registration Maharashtra State Pune, New Administrative Building Ground Floor, Opposite Legislative Building, Pune-411001 6.

Tahsil Office (Through Thahsildar) Newasa, District Ahmednagar 7.

Tahsil Office (Through Thahsildar) Akoloe, Taluka Akole, District Ahmednagar RESPONDENTS Mr M.R. Wagh, Advocate for petitioner;

Ms Rashmi P. Gour, A.G.P. for respondent/State CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.

DATED :

21st JUNE, 2019 ORAL ORDER:

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

( 3 ) 2.

By order dated 21st December, 2018 simple notice was issued to respondent Nos. 3 and 5 making the same returnable on 22nd February, 2019. The grievance of the petitioner is of non compliance of the order of this Court dated 30th January, 2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 1918 of 2017, whereby the respondents-authorities were directed to take a decision on the issue raised by the petitioner before the authorities treating his suspension period as period of service.

3.

Learned A.G.P. placed before us the communication/order dated 13th June, 2019. Perusal of the said order clearly shows that considering all aspects of the matter, State Government thought it fit to treat period of suspension of the petitioner, as period of service. The order also refers to payment of due and receivable amount to the petitioner against salary and emoluments.

It also states about adjustment of suspension allowance paid to the petitioner. The order

( 4 ) is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. In view of the order, we may safely say that the order of this Court in writ petition is complied with in letter and spirit.

4.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is passed in favour of the petitioner, who sought voluntarily retirement would be anxious to receive the amount actually so as to meet his financial needs. The request being justified one, we only direct the authorities that the order dated 13th June, 2019 be effected in actual disbursement to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and not later than twelve (12) weeks from today.

5.

With above directions, the petition is disposed of accordingly.

[R.G. AVACHAT, J.] [PRASANNA B. VARALE,J.] Tupe