Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 44136 (BOM)

SHRI LAXMAN SHIVAJI GODSE, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING) AND ORS. v. SHRI. SITARAM S/O. JANARDHAN KUNTE, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS.

CP/163/2018 · 2025-08-06

Shri Shree Chandrashekhar, Smt Manjusha Ajay Deshpande

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1-cp-163-2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.163 OF 2018 Shri.Laxman Shivaji Godse, Assistant Professor (Electrical Engineering) & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Shri.Sitaram S/o. Janardhan Kunte, Thr Principal Secretary & Ors. ...Respondents ---- Mr.Yashodeep Deshmukh a/w Ms.Udeshi Deshmukh, Ms.Sonali Pawar i/b Ms.Sharayu Shinde. Mr.L.M. Acharya, Spl. Council. a/w Mr.S.S. Bhende, AGP for Respondent-State. ---- CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & S. V. MARNE, JJ. DATE : 21 JULY 2022 P.C:- . We are not convinced by the stand of the Respondent. This Court had specifically directed the benefits to be accorded as per the 6th Pay Commission. The same is not yet accorded though the judgment and order is passed on 27 July 2017. 2. It is high time the order passed by this Court is implemented. The learned counsel for the Institution submits N.S. Kamble page 1 of 2 NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Digitally signed by NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date: 2022.07.25 11:33:43 +0530 1-cp-163-2018 that the Institution has filed review of the order passed on preacipe. 3. The said order is passed more than 4 years back. The order of which the contempt is alleged is inforce. The Petitioner cannot wait for undefinate period. The orders passed by this Court are require to be implemented in its true laters and spirit. 4. Considering the long time gap that is the order is passed and not yet implemented, by way of an indulgence we place the matter on 21 September 2022. If on the said date, if the order of which the contempt is alleged is inforce and is not implemented then we would take a serious view of the matter. 5. The Respondent Nos.4 and 5 (AICT Officers) could not have been added as a party to the Contempt Petition. The Contempt Petition is dismissed against them. 6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that even against the Respondent No.6-University Officer the present Contempt Petition is not pressed. The Contempt Petition is also dismissed as against Respondent No.6. (S.V. MARNE, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) N.S. Kamble page 2 of 2