Rajashree N Ghag Married Name Sneha Sunil Sawant v. Shri S.P. Patil

Amberkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 545 OF 2025 Rajashree N. Ghag (Married Name - Sneha Sunil Sawant) .. Petitioner

Versus

S.P. Patil .. Respondent ....................

 Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant, Advocate for Petitioner  Mr. Mustafa Bohra a/w Ms. Shruti Mehta i/by Solomon & Co, Advocate for Respondent  Mr. S.P. Patil, Respondent present ...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : AUGUST 18, 2025 P. C.

:

1.

Mentioned at the time of rising by Mr. Sawant, learned Advocate for Petitioner.

2.

Heard Mr. Sawant, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. Bohra, learned Advocate for Respondent.

3.

On the previous date i.e. on 11.08.2025, this Court passed the following order:- "1.

Heard Mr. Sawant, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Ms. Dixit, learned Advocate for Respondents.

2.

Present Contempt Petition is filed in view of directions contained in the order dated 01.08.2024 appended as Exhibit - 'A' at page No.30 of the Petition not having been complied with. Operative part of said order is at page No.35. Learned Advocate for Petitioner in his usual fairness informs the Court that Petitioner has already been reinstated save and except that he has not been paid the amounts which are stated in the said order. Though order is dated 01.08.2024 and almost one year has passed thereafter the Respondents ought to have shown some exigency.

3.

Ms. Dixit, learned Advocate for Respondents on instructions would submit that Respondent - MTNL has computed and calculated the entire amount of wages alongwith differential wages due and payable to the Petitioner as directed in the above order and sent the entire calculation for seeking sanction from their Delhi office.

4.

Though I could have recorded the statement and simplicitor disposed of the petition, but I am not inclined to do so for the simple reason that the directions contained in the order of this Court of which contempt is alleged were required to be complied with by Respondents within a period of eight (8) weeks from 01.08.2024 as stated and directed therein. Petition was filed by the Respondent before this Court and therefore it was all the more incumbent and imperative on the part of the Respondent / contemnor to have complied with the said order as directed by this Court.

The casual manner in which the above statement is made across the bar on instructions by the learned Advocate for Respondent / contemnor is not appreciated by Court in the light of specific directions given by this Court to comply with the order within a period of eight (8) weeks from 01.08.2024. It is seen that Respondent has shown scant regard and obedience to the order passed by this Court and has treated the order of this Court very lightly. This cannot be tolerated by Court which shall be noted by Respondent. I am keeping the Contempt Petition next week for passing further orders. 5.

The General Manger of Respondent - MTNL - Mr..S.P. Patil is directed to remain present personally on the next adjourned date and is directed to file Affidavit-in-reply and explain as to why the order dated 01.08.2024 passed by this Court specifying a specific timeline for payment of the amount was not complied with by the Respondent, failing which this Court shall pass appropriate orders on the next adjourned date. 5.1.

Affidavit-in-reply shall be filed by the Respondent and it shall be explained therein as to why Respondent did not think it fit to seek extension of the order dated 01.08.2024 from this Court. 5.2.

Respondent is also directed by this Court to take immediate instructions from its office at Delhi and ensure that all the outstanding amounts as directed by order dated 01.08.2024 are forthwith paid before the next adjourned date, failing which this Court shall pass appropriate orders.

6.

Stand over to 18th August, 2025."

4.

I am informed by Mr. Bohra today that the power to sanction the computation in respect of the present case lies with CMD in New Delhi. Respondent - Mr. Patil, General Manager, MTNL is present in Court. He also informs the Court that all efforts have been taken by

their branch and sanction / approval is sought for from the CMD in New Delhi.

5.

Copy of this order shall be placed before the CMD by Mr. Bohra. CMD of Respondent is directed by this Court to immediately accord sanction in accordance with law since this is a Contempt proceedings and substantial time has lapsed after passing the order of this Court which ought to have been otherwise complied with by Respondent latest by 01.10.2024.

6.

At the request of Mr. Bohra, stand over to 15th September, 2025.

Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date:

2025.08.18 20:03:08 +0530 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR