Jyoti Ashokrao Dhabadge v. Shri. Sudhir Kumar Goel, Additional Chief Secretary (Agri. And Hort),Mumbai And Others

cp373.15 1/2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 373 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3815 OF 2014 (D) Jyoti Ashokrao Dhabadge -vsSudhir Kumar Goel, Addl. Chief Secretary, Govt.of Maharashtra and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and Registrar's orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Mahesh Rai, counsel for the petitioner.

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & PRASANNA. B. VARALE, JJ.

DATE : 16.12.2015.

By this contempt petition, the petitioner seeks an action against the respondents for willful disobedience of the direction in Writ Petition No.3815 of 2014.

The petitioner was the respondent in an original application, filed by Sonutai Tayade. The petitioner was appointed along with other candidates on the post of Nursery Assistant. The original application was allowed. Ku.Jayashri Raut, whose appointment was set aside in view of the order on the original application, filed Writ Petition No.3815 of 2014, challenging the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. This Court allowed the writ petition and quashed and set aside the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. According to the petitioner, after the writ petition was allowed, it was necessary for the respondents-authorities to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Nursery Assistant.

If the petitioner is not reinstated after the writ petition filed by Ku.Jayashri Raut was allowed, the petitioner has other

cp373.15 2/2 remedies. There is no direction of this Court in Writ Petition No.3815 of 2014 to the respondents-authorities to reinstate the petitioner and some other candidates, whose services were terminated, after the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. In the absence of any specific directions to the respondents-authorities to reinstate the petitioner, in our view, no proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act may be initiated against the respondents. The petitioner is free to avail appropriate remedy.

The contempt petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE KHUNTE