Bombay High CourtCP/159/2013dispossed offdismiss for default

Chyavan S/O Janaklal Sonwane And 2 Others v. Shri. Arvind Deshbhratar (Executive Officer) Nagpur Improvement Trust And Another

2015-10-07Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 cp159.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO.159 OF 2014 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 688 OF 2008 (D).

(CHAVAN JANAKLAL SONAWANE & 2 OTH...VS..ARVIND DESHBHRATAR, EO NIT & ANR.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : OCTOBER 07, 2015.

Heard Shri F.G.Isaac, learned advocate for the petitioners and Shri S.K.Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri K.C. Deogade, advocate for the respondents. The learned advocate for the petitioners has filed pursis dated 6th October, 2015 stating that the petitioner No.1 has expired on 28th August, 2015.

The grievance of the petitioners is that the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 688 of 2008 on 29th February, 2012 by which continuity of service came to be granted to the petitioners, was not complied with. In response to the notice, issued by this Court, the respondents have filed affidavit on 13th January, 2014 stating that the petitioners are reinstated in service pursuant to the order passed by the Labour Court and continuity of service, as directed by this Court, has also been granted. The petitioners have filed additional rejoinder on 19th June, 2014 and along with it the copy of the order dated 26th February, 2014 is

2 cp159.13 annexed at page No.111 of the paper book. It is stated in this order that the petitioners are granted continuity of service. The grievance of the petitioners does not survive. Considering the facts of the case, in my view, the jurisdiction under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not required to be invoked. The notice of contempt is discharged.

The petition is disposed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE RRaut..