Shri Sudhakar Jagobaji Madake And Others v. Shri S.K. Mukharjee, Secretary To The Govt. Of Maharashtra, Department Of P.W.D., Mumbai And Anothe

1301cp149.15.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO.149/2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3693/2001 (D) Shri Sudhakar Jagobaji Madake and others ...Versus...

Shri S.K. Mukharjee, Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Department of P.W.D., Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 and another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M.M. Sawang, Advocate for petitioners Mrs. K.S. Joshi, AGP for respondents - State CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

DATE : 13.01.2016 By this contempt petition, the petitioners seek action against the respondents for wilful disobedience of the direction issued by the judgment dated 23.10.2013 in Writ Petition No.3693/2001.

It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that the contempt petition was filed as till the date of filing of the contempt petition, the deemed date of the petitioners was not fixed and the monetary benefits were also not computed. It is stated that the pension was also not revised by considering the deemed date of promotion.

Mrs. Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents states, on the basis of the affidavit-

1301cp149.15.odt in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2, that the order of which the contempt is alleged has been complied with, inasmuch as the deemed date of promotion has been fixed and the amount payable to the petitioners in pursuance of the fixation of deemed date of promotion is also sought to be granted. It is stated that some cheques are drawn and they are already handed over to the petitioners, except the petitioner no.5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the statements made on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that most of the amount has been received by the petitioners and some bills are lying with the office of the Accountant General. It is stated that there is some grievance in regard to the fixation of deemed date of the petitioners and the petitioners would agitate the matter before the appropriate forum.

In view of the statements recorded hereinabove, we dispose of the contempt petition with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Wadkar