Jagannath Vikram Ghuge v. Smt Minnu P S

2026:BHC-AUG:4699-DB 1 1.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1 CONT. PETITION NO. 874 OF 2025 IN WP/10869/2024 JAGANNATH VIKRAM GHUGE

VERSUS

SMT MINNU P S ...

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shivkumar K Mathpati AGP/APP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.P. Sonpawale Advocate for Respondent No.1 and 2 : Mr. Suryawanshi Prashant D. ...

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE : 02.02.2026 PER COURT :

.

Pursuant to our earlier order dated 17.01.2026, the Chief Executive Officer of respondent No.1/Zilla Parishad is present before us.

2.

This Contempt Petition is arising out of an order passed by this Court on 03.10.2024 in Writ Petition No.10869 of 2024. The above order of which this Contempt Petition arises reads thus : "1. All these Petitioners claim to have received their District Awards prior to 12.12.2000. The details read as under Chart in respect of details of Petitioners name, date of appointments, date of retirement and date of District Award :- Sr.No. Name of the Petitioners Date of Appointment Date of Retirement Date of District Award Namdev Asaram Gaikwad 16.11.1973 30.06.2011 19997-1998 Neela Dattatray Tarakh 05.04.1979 31.12.2016 1995-1996 Minaxi Sudhakarrao Rakhe 11.12.1973 30.11.2004 1998-1999

2 1.doc Jagannath Vikram Ghughe 30.06.1971 31.03.2007 1994-1995 Shrikrishna Babasaheb Tarakh 11.01.1974 31.08.2011 1994-1995 2.

In this Petition, the Petitioners are identically placed. All of them received the District Teachers Award prior to 12.12.2000. In several matters, this Court has concluded that "the Respondent Zilla Parishad, after confirming itself of the Petitioner being a District Awardee Teacher prior to 04.09.2018, prior to his retirement, shall consider the case of the Petitioner for additional increment as laid down in the circular dated 12.12.2000. It is made clear that the Petitioner will not be entitled for actual monetary benefits till the date of his retirement. The additional increment shall be counted notionally. The benefit shall be given to the Petitioner for pension purpose." (WP Nos. 12519/2019 and 9414/2021]. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are satisfied if the above order is made applicable to their cases."

3.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and 2 has filed an affidavit in reply alongwith a communication dated 7/22.01.2026 annexed therewith showing that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have complied with the said directions.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner however contends that the monetary benefits pursuant to the said order has not been paid. 5.

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that they are pursuing the government for release of said monetary benefits and the same are likely to be released within a period of six months from today, so that the same could be paid to the petitioner. 6.

In that view of the matter, the Contempt Petition stands disposed of.

( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. ) vsj..