Bombay High CourtCP/112/2018dismissedrule discharged

Dr. Ramdas S/O Govindrao Chaware v. Sau. Archana Nerkar, Joint Director Of Higher Education, Amravati And 2 Others

2018-04-13Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Swapna Joshi2 pages

1 cp112.18.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO.112 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6522 OF 2015 [D] [Dr. Ramdas s/o Govindrao Chaware .vs. Sau. Archana Nerkar and others] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Anup D. Dangore, counsel for the petitioner. ..........

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOS HI, JJ .

DATED : APRIL 13, 2018.

Heard.

By this contempt petition the petitioner seeks an action against the respondents for willful disobedience of the directions in the order dated 27.6.2016.

It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that by the order dated 27.6.2016 the petitioner was permitted to make a representation and the respondents were directed to decide the same within four weeks. It is stated that the education authorities have released the amount payable to the petitioner towards leave encashment to the management but the management is not releasing the same.

The petitioner ought not have filed the contempt petition as we do not find any direction in the order of which the contempt is alleged, directing the management or the education authority to release the amount towards leave encashment benefits to the petitioner. The court had only directed the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within four weeks. After that, there is no direction to any of the respondents to do any particular act. In the absence of any

2 cp112.18.odt specific direction against the respondents to pay the amount towards leave encashment benefits to the petitioner, action under the Contempt of Courts Act cannot be initiated against the respondents.

In the result, we dismiss the contempt petition with no order as to costs. The petitioner is free to avail the appropriate remedy if so advised. Order accordingly.

JUDGE JUDGE Gulande