Bombay High Court
Kailash S/O Ramchandra Shrirame vs Smt. Shailaji Shailesh Daburkar ... on 30 March, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
cp103.11 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 103 OF 2011 IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1110 OF 2009 AND
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 35 OF 2010
Kailash s/o Ramchandra Shrirame,
aged about 42 years,r/o 30,
MAHADA Colony, Near Bornala,
Besides Friends Colony, Katol Road,
Nagpur. ... PETITIONER
Versus
2. The Secretary,
Mahesh Vidya Prasarak Shikshan
Sanstha, r/o Plot No. 312, Jawahar
Nagar, Manewada Road, Nagpur.
2. Smt. Shailaji Shailesh Daburkar,
Mahesh Vidya Prasarak Shikshan
Sanstha, through its Secretary,
Plot No. 312, Jawahar Nagar,
Manewada Road, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri P.N. Shende, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the respondents.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
MARCH 30, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Heard Shri Shende, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for the
respondents.
2. The question is, whether the petitioner is entitled
to arrears of subsistence allowance accruing on account of
Sixth Wage Revision. The petitioner was placed under
suspension pending inquiry on 02.12.2008 and has been
terminated on 22.04.2010.
3. For a period from 01.01.2006 to 01.12.2008
admittedly, he has been paid as per Sixth Wage revision. The
Sixth Wage revision has been extended on 12.06.2009 with
effect from 01.01.2006. Thus, wage revision has become
applicable during the period when the petitioner was under
suspension.
4. Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel submits that the
period of suspension has been regularized by treating it as
suspension only. In this situation, the petitioner - employee is
not entitled to revision of subsistence allowance. He seeks
support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Union of India vs. R.K. Chopra, reported at 2010 (2)
SCC 763.
5. Shri Shende, learned counsel submits that this
Court has while disposing of Contempt Petition No. 35 of 2010
in Writ Petition No. 1110 of 2009 on 10.06.2010 specifically
declared the entitlement of the petitioner to arrears of 6 th Pay
Commission.
6. We find that entitlement has been declared by this
Court and it is to be extended "as per Rules". In this situation,
in Contempt jurisdiction, we cannot effectively examine the
impact of a direction dated 10.06.2010 mentioned supra,
which has again been issued in Contempt jurisdiction only.
7. We find that interest of justice can be met with by
permitting the petitioner to make a representation claiming
the arrears of subsistence allowance for the period of
suspension. If such a representation is moved by the petitioner
within a period of three weeks from today, the concerned
Education Officer shall look into it and after hearing the
petitioner and the management, arrive at a suitable decision
upon it within a period of next two weeks.
8. Needless to mention that the grievance of the
petitioner about illegality in continuation of suspension period
beyond the period of four months is also kept open and can be
looked into by the Education Officer during this exercise.
9. With these directions and keeping all rival
contentions open, we dispose of the present Contempt
Petition. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
