← Library
Bombay High CourtCPM/6/2016disposed of

Mr. Ashish Anil Gaonkar. v. Mrs. Archana Gopinath Sr. Superintendent Officer And ANR.,

2016-07-26F. M. Reis,Hon'Ble Kum. Justice Nutan D. Sardessai2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

CONTEMPT PETITION (MAIN) NO. 6 OF 2016 MR. ASHISH ANIL GAONKAR.

... Petitioner

Versus

MRS. ARCHANA GOPINATH SR.

SUPERINTENDENT OFFICER AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Mahesh Amonkar, Central Government Standing Counsel for the Respondents.

Coram:- F. M. REIS & NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.

Date:- 26th July, 2016 P.C.

Heard Mr. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Mahesh Amonkar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

2. It is not disputed that in the meanwhile, the Petitioner has joined services with the Respondent-Post Office.

3. Mr. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, however points out that there was gross delay in implementing the Judgment passed by this Court and, as such, according to him, the Petitioner should be adequately compensated or at least permitted to make a representation.

4. Mr. Mahesh Amonkar, learned Central Government Standing

CPM/6/2016 Counsel appearing for the Respondents, states that the Petitioner has raised a challenge to the Judgment before the Apex Court and, as such, there was delay in complying with the Order.

5. As there was no stay on the operation of the Judgment, the Respondents should have otherwise complied with the directions of this Court immediately. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we find that as the directions have now been implemented and Mr. Amonkar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, assures that this conduct on the part of the Respondent would not be repeated henceforth, the above contempt Petition deserves to be disposed of.

6. Needless to say, as far as the contention of Mr. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, we find that the question of granting any such compensation in this Petition would be justified in the peculiar facts of the case. But, however, the Petitioner is at liberty to make a representation before the appropriate authorities which shall be examined on its own merits and in accordance with law.

7. Contempt Petition stands disposed of accordingly. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J.

F. M. REIS, J.

arp/*