Sajjan Hindurao Mane v. Manoj Sounik

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 258 OF 2024 by URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Date: 2025.03.18 18:18:31 +0530 URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Dattatraya Kalyanrao Patil and ors.

... Petitioners

Versus

Mr. Manoj Sounik and ors.

.... Respondents ALONG WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 260 OF 2024 Vaijinath Surybhan Aawate and ors.

... Petitioners

Versus

Mr. Manoj Sounik and ors.

.... Respondents ALONG WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 261 OF 2024 Ramakant Masu Londhe and ors.

... Petitioners

Versus

Mr. Manoj Sounik and ors.

.... Respondents ALONG WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 262 OF 2024 Bhanudas Damodar Bhoge and ors.

... Petitioners

Versus

Mr. Manoj Sounik and ors.

.... Respondents ALONG WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 259 OF 2024 (Not on Board. Taken on Board.) Sajjan Hindurao Mane and ors.

... Petitioners

Versus

Mr. Manoj Sounik and ors.

.... Respondents **** Mr. Dhananjay Chavan, for the Petitioners.

Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for Respondents No. 19 & 20 in CP/258/2024. Mr. Ashok Misal, for Respondents No. 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15 & 17 in CP/258/2024.

Ms. Pooja Joshi Deshpande, AGP for Respondents No. 15 & 16 in CP/260/2024.

Mr. Ashok Misal, for Respondents No. 7, 8, 9, 13 & 14 in CP/260/2024. Ms. Priyanka Chavan, AGP, for Respondents No. 15 & 16 in CP/261/2024.

Mr. Ashok Misal, for Respondents No. 9, 10, 11, 13 & 14 in CP/261/2024.

Mr.S.B.Kalel., AGP for Respondents No. 10 & 11 in CP/262/2024. Mr. Ashok Misal, for Respondents No. 8, 9 &10 in CP/262/2024. Ms.N.M. Mehra, AGP for Respondents No. 19 & 20 in CP/259/2024. Mr. Ashok Misal, for Respondents No. 7 to 12, 14, 15, 17 & 18 in CP/259/2024.

**** CORAM : M.S.KARNIK & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

DATE :

18th MARCH, 2025 P.C. :

1.

We find that there is substantial compliance with the orders passed by this Court. It is the grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners that pension amount is not calculated properly as in some other departments, like employees working in Tahsildar office or those working with the Zilla Parishad office at Satara, employees similarly situated are getting much more pensionary benefits and the difference is approximately upto Rs.7,000/-.

2.

In our opinion, this cannot be the scope of the contempt petitions. It is open for the petitioners to avail appropriate remedies, if it is their contention that the petitioners are paid less pension amount. It is also open for the petitioners to make a representation and bring this

anomaly, if it exists, to the notice to the concerned authorities. The representation be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. 3.

Keeping this liberty open, contempt petitions are disposed of.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (M.S.KARNIK, J.)