Shirin Ramesh Ankalwar v. Shri. Lokesh Chandra, Managing Director, M.S. Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Mumbai And ORS

2025:BHC-NAG:13223-DB 903.cp.130.2025.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 130 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1448 OF 2023 Shirin Ramesh Ankalwar .Vs.

Shri Lokesh Chandra, MD, Mumbai and others _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Mr A. A. Mardikar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr S. V. Purohit, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ. DATED : NOVEM BER 28 , 2025 .

Heard.

2.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents failed to comply with the direction to pay 50% back wages and grant continuity in service with consequential benefits as directed by this Court (Coram: Avinash G. Gharote and Smt. M. S. Jawalkar, JJ.) in Writ Petition No. 1448 of 2023 vide order dated 03.05.2024 and accordingly, a contempt is committed.

3.

The respondents denied the same and submitted that the compliance was made, however some amount is remained to be paid towards the notional increment and pay fixation. He submits that other benefits have already been granted.

4.

In the contempt, it is a settled law that the punishment, as prayed in the petition, can only be imposed if

903.cp.130.2025.odt there is sufficient material brought on record to show that there is wilful disobedience.

5.

In this case, if any further reliefs, as according to the petitioner, covered by consequential benefits, are not granted, the petitioner is having an independent remedy. But, in any case, considering the compliance affidavit filed on record, it cannot be said that there is a wilful disobedience which is a prerequisite to punish under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

6.

In that view of the matter, we do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have committed contempt. 7.

Accordingly, the contempt petition stands dismissed.

[RAJNISH R. VYAS, J] [ANIL S. KILOR, J.] Namrata