Bombay High CourtCP/101/2016dispossed offdismiss for default

Dr. Sandeep Prakash Joshi v. State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, Dept. Of Higher And Tech. Education And 3 Others

2016-08-09Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Swapna Joshi3 pages

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO.101/2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2495/2015 (D) (DR.SANDEEP PRAKASH JOSHI VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.A. Lambat, counsel for the petitioner. Shri D.P. Thakre, counsel for the respondents. CORAM : SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : AUGUST 09 , 2016.

By this contempt petition, the petitioner has sought action against the respondents for willful disobedience of the order of this Court, dated 04.12.2015, in Writ Petition No.2495 of 2015. It is stated that though this Court had directed the respondents to release the salary of the petitioner from April-2012 and onwards within three months, the salary of the petitioner was not paid.

Shri Thakre, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, states on instructions and by referring to a receipt that is signed by the petitioner on 06.08.2016 that the petitioner has received an amount of Rs.21,17,447/- towards the arrears of salary from April-2012 till July-2016. It is stated that the gross salary of the petitioner for the said period was Rs.32,63,447/- and the net salary after deducting the taxes and other dues of Rs.11,46,000/- was Rs.21,17,447/-. It is stated that the said amount is paid to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents states that the delay in making the payment is not intentional and the delay occurred due to administrative exigencies.

On a perusal of the copy of the receipt that is tendered in the Court, today, we find that the petitioner has received the salary.

Since the salary of the petitioner is paid and since we find that the delay is not deliberate, we dispose of the contempt petition with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE APTE

CERTIFICATE copy of original signed Judgment/Order.

Uploaded by: Rohit D. Apte.

Uploaded on : 11.08.2016.