Jagdish Rambhau Lodhikhan And 11 ... vs Union Of India And 4 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1776 Bom

                                                                               25-CPW-69-19.doc

             Sharayu Khot.
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                        CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 69 OF 2019
                                                           IN
                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 1561 OF 2005


                   Jagdish Rambhau Lodhikhan & Ors.                        ...Petitioners

                             Versus

                   Union of India & Ors.                                   ...Respondents

                                                        ----------
                   None for the Petitioners.
                   None for the Respondents.
                                                        ----------

                                                        CORAM :          K.K. TATED &
                                                                         R.I. CHAGLA, JJ.

                                                         DATE        :   27 January 2021

                   ORDER :

Sharayu P. Khot 1. Today the matter is shown on board, pursuant to the

Digitally praecipe filed by the learned Advocate for the Petitioners. But when signed by Sharayu P.

Khot Date:

2021.02.01 the matter is called out, none appeared on behalf of the Petitioners. 12:37:45 +0530

2. By this Contempt Petition, the Petitioners are seeking to

take action against the Respondents for non compliance of the order

25-CPW-69-19.doc

dated 3rd August 2018 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1561

of 2005. Paragraph 10 to 13 of the said order read thus:-

"10] Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the CAT that the respondents have fulfilled the requirement of OM dated 7th June 1988 providing for scheme of regularization and coupled with the fact that the respondents have rendered continuous service for several years as noted by the CAT, we see no good ground to interfere with the directions issued by the CAT in paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment and order. However, in the context of the submissions made, we propose to clarify certain matters and to that extent, the impugned judgment and order will stand modified. The fact that unlike in the case of S. N. Kamble (supra), in the present case there exist sanctioned post in the department is yet another factor for not interfering with the directions in paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment and order.

11] We are informed that there are at least 12 posts which are sanctioned in the department, against which the case of the respondents for regularization with effect from 27th October 1995 or such suitable date can be considered. If ultimately the services of the respondents are regularized with effect from 27th October 1995 or such suitable date, then, the respondents, consistent with their undertaking, will not claim for any arrears of wages from 27th October

25-CPW-69-19.doc

1995 till the date of regularization of their services.

12] However, if regularization is ordered, then, the petitioners, to fix the pay of the respondent nos.1 to 12 with effect from the date of regularization as per the pay-scales and benefits applicable to regular employees as on 27th October 1995 and to award to the respondents fitment of pay accordingly. No doubt, such benefit of pay-scales etc. will be on notional basis since, the respondents, have agreed not to claim any arrears of wages. Further, in the event of regularization, the respondents will be entitled to benefits of gratuity, pension and other retiral benefits in accordance with rules.

13] Since, the issue of regularization is pending since long, it is only appropriate that the directions issued by the CAT, with modifications as aforesaid, are complied with by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, we direct compliance within a period of six weeks from today."

3. This Court directed the Respondents to comply with the

order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal expeditiously

within a period of six weeks. As they failed and neglected to do so,

the Petitioners filed the present Contempt Petition.

4. Considering the order dated 3rd August 2018 passed by

this Court in Writ Petition No. 1561 of 2005 and averments made in

25-CPW-69-19.doc

Contempt Petition that the Respondents failed to comply with the

same within time, the following order is passed :-

(i) Office is directed to issue notice to the Respondents under

Chapter XXXIV Rule 9(1) of the Bombay High Court

Appellate Side Rules, 1960, returnable on 22nd February

2021.

(ii) In addition to usual mode of service, the Petitioners are

permitted to serve the Respondents by private notice along

with entire proceedings, either by registered post AD and/

or by hand delivery and file an affidavit of service to that

effect on or before 12th February 2021.

(iii) Stand over to 22nd February 2021.

[R.I. CHAGLA J.]                            [K.K. TATED, J.]