Ganesh Shankarrao Kukade v. Rajesh Hiralal Bharti And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO.315/2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3880/2016 (D) Ganesh Shankarrao Kukade ...Versus...

Rajesh Hiralal Bharti, President of Akash Shikshan Sanstha, Akola and others WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.318/2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3881/2016 (D) Sachinkumar Vishram Tayde ...Versus...

Rajesh Hiralal Bharti, President of Akash Shikshan Sanstha, Akola and others WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.327/2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3878/2016 (D) Ku. Padma Keshavrao Wadatkar (Nee) Sau. Padma Arun Tale ...Versus...

Rajesh Hiralal Bharti. President of Akash Shikshan Sanstha, Akola 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 P.A. Kadu, Advocate for petitioner in all petitions Shri P.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2 in all petitions Ms Tajwar Khan, AGP for respondent no.3 in all petitions CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 09.12.2016

By these contempt petitions, the petitioners seek action against the respondents for wilful disobedience of the common order, dated 11.7.2016 in Writ Petition Nos.3879/2016, 3880/2016 and 3881/2016.

Shri Kadu, the learned Counsel for the petitioners states that though this Court had directed the respondent nos.1 and 2 to submit the salary bills of the petitioners to the respondent no.3, the correct salary bills are not submitted. It is stated that the salary bills for a lesser amount are submitted by the respondent nos.1 and 2 to the respondent no.3. Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 states that this Court had directed the respondent nos.1 and 2 to send the salary bills of the petitioners to the respondent no.3, as per the entitlement of the petitioners and in accordance with the said directions, the respondent nos.1 and 2 have sent the salary bills pertaining to the petitioners to the respondent no.3, as per the petitioners' entitlement.

It is stated that if there is any dispute in regard to the amount of salary payable to the petitioners, the petitioners have other remedies. However, this would not be a matter of contempt. In the circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to proceed with the contempt proceedings any further. It appears from the statement made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.3 that the salary bills of the petitioners were submitted by the respondent nos.1 and 2 to the respondent no.3 and the salary from December, 2015 to May, 2016 is paid to the petitioners. It is stated that the salary bills for the month of June, 2016 are being processed.

If that be so, it cannot be said that the respondents have flouted the order of this Court and are not implementing the order of which the contempt is alleged.

In the circumstances of the case, we dispose of the contempt petitions with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Wadkar