Bombay High Court
Ankush S/O Tejrao Lomte And Others vs Santosh S/O Kanhyalal Banmeru And ... on 23 February, 2021
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
204-J-CP-344-16 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.344 OF 2016
IN
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.262 OF 2011 (D)
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.5890 OF 2010 (D)
1. Ankush S/o Tejrao Lomte,
Aged about 36 years, Occ. Nil
r/o Uswad, Tq. Mantha, Dist. Jalna
2. Kailash s/o Namdeorao Khandare
Aged about 44 years, Occ. Nil
R/o Kanadi Tq. Mantha Dist. Jalna
3. Ashruba s/o Wamanrao Khandare
Aged about 39 years, Occ. Nil
R/o Kanadi Tq. Mantha Dist. Jalna ... Petitioners
-vs-
1. Santosh s/o Kanhyalal Banmeru,
Aged about 48 years, Occ. Medical
Practitioner, Secretary Amrut Sevabhavi
Sanstha, Parbhani, r/o C/o Durga Clinic,
Bajrang Complex, Loni Road,
Lonar, Dist. Buldana
2. Dr Prakash s/o Kanhyalala Banmeru
Aged about 53 years, Principal,
Late Kumari Durga K. Banmeru Science
College, Loni Road, Lonar, Dist. Buldana ... Respondents
Shri P. B. Patil, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Ashok P. Raghute, Advocate for respondents.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATE : February 23, 2021
Oral Judgment : (Per : A. S. Chandurkar, J.)
The petitioners had approached the University and College
204-J-CP-344-16 2/5
Tribunal, Nagpur seeking to challenge their alleged otherwise
termination of services alleging that on 30/01/2008 they were shown to
have resigned from service. The learned Presiding Officer of the
University and College Tribunal, Nagpur by judgment dated
31/08/2010 allowed the appeal and after setting aside the otherwise
termination directed their reinstatement with continuity of service on
the same terms of their service as on 30/01/2008. 50% back-wages
were directed to be paid by clarifying that such continuity of service
would not confer any more rights on the petitioners than available to
them on 30/01/2008. This order was challenged in Writ Petition
No.5890/2010 and that writ petition was dismissed on 05/04/2011.
Thereafter LPA No.262/2011 preferred by the Management was
dismissed on 29/07/2016. Since according to the petitioners there was
non-compliance with the direction of reinstatement and 50% back-
wages were not paid the contempt petition was filed. In the reply filed
on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that on 06/09/2016 the
petitioners were reinstated. However since their appointments came to
an end in terms of the appointment order, they were relieved on the
same day. In paragraph 11 of the reply it has been stated that though
the petitioners were entitled to be paid 50% salary till the end of the
204-J-CP-344-16 3/5
academic session of 2007-08 they were infact paid 50% salary till the
date of passing of the order by the University and College Tribunal
which was 31/08/2010.
After this affidavit was filed there is no rejoinder to the same.
2. Shri P. B. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the order of the University and College Tribunal granted continuity
of service alongwith 50% back-wages. By not reinstating the
petitioners, the respondents had not complied with that direction. He
disputed the stand of the respondents that the petitioners were
reinstated on 06/09/2016. Hence according to him there was
disobedience of the orders passed by this Court.
3. Shri A. P. Raghute, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the reinstatement of the petitioners alongwith continuity
of service was in accordance with the order of appointment dated
25/08/2007 issued to the petitioners. This order of appointment was
for a period of one year till the end of academic session 2007-08.
Though the petitioners were entitled for 50% back-wages till
30/04/2008 they were infact paid much more amount by way of back-
204-J-CP-344-16 4/5
wages till 31/08/2010. He relied upon the documents filed along with
the reply to submit that services of the petitioners were reinstated on
06/09/2016.
4. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties we find that
the University and College Tribunal directed reinstatement of the
petitioners with continuity of service but on the basis of the rights
available to the petitioners on 31/01/2008. In other words, the order
of appointment was treated as the basis on which the petitioners were to
be reinstated. This aspect has been clarified by the judgment of Writ
Petition No.5890/2010 by observing that the order of appointment
issued was for one academic session which would have come to an end
in April 2008. In other words, the petitioners were entitled to continue
in service in terms of their order of appointment till end of academic
session 2007-08. No further rights were granted to the petitioners.
5. It has been specifically stated on affidavit that petitioners
were paid 50% salary till the appeal was decided by the Tribunal on
31/08/2010. This period for which the back-wages were paid is much
more than what was directed to be paid by the Management. Since the
204-J-CP-344-16 5/5
appointment of the petitioners had to come to an end by April 2008,
the direction insofar as payment of 50% back-wages thus stands
complied with. As regards the aspect of reinstatement, there is a
dispute with regard to the actual act of reinstatement. However in our
view nothing much would turn on the same since the Management has
paid the petitioners 50% salary for the entire period for which they were
to be reinstated and even the period of two years thereafter. In the
light of these facts we do not find any deliberate disobedience of the
order passed by the University and College Tribunal as confirmed by
this Court. In that view of the matter the contempt petition stands
dismissed with no order as to costs. It is made clear that the
respondents are not permitted to recover any excess payment made to
the petitioners.
JUDGE JUDGE
Digitally signed by
Asmita Asmita Bhandakkar
Bhandakkar Date: 2021.02.25
10:35:51 +0530
Asmita
