Bombay High Court
Shri. Shamrao Durgappa Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. The ... on 22 November, 2021
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
5-CP 379-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Amk
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 379 OF 2021
Shri Shamrao Gurgappa Pawar .. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
Mr. Y. B. Lengare a/w. Mr. Wilson Rob for the Petitioner.
Mr. Nitin Deshpande a/w. Mr. A. P. Vanarase, AGP for the Respondent
Nos.1 & 7-State.
Mr. Kuldeep V. Nikam for Respondent No.2.
Ms. Sanjana Khopde, Deputy Secretary (EGS) Planning Department
present.
Mr. Bhagure Devidas S., Section Officer, Public Works Department present.
CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI, J.
DATE : 22nd NOVEMBER, 2021.
P. C. :
1. By an order dated 17 November, 2021 this matter was directed to be
listed first on board. This Court had observed that prima-facie it appears
that there is disrespect to the order passed by this Court (N. W. Sambre, J.)
on 1 August, 2019 and accordingly, the following observations were made
in paragraph 7 accepting that the respondents would take appropriate steps
to comply with the orders of this Court which was valid and subsisting and
binding on the respondents:-
"7. However, only as a matter of indulgence, the
proceedings are adjourned to 22 November, 2021 (FOB). By
such time, it is expected that the respondents take appropriate
steps to comply with the orders of this Court, which as on date
valid and subsisting and binding on the respondents."
2. With the above observations, the matter was adjourned for today.
Today when the matter was called out, Mr. Vanarase, learned AGP for the
State has requested that the matter be kept at 02.30 p.m. as an affidavit of
5-CP 379-21.odt
compliance of the order would be tendered. If there is compliance of the
order, there ought not to be any issue and such indulgence can be granted,
however, if the affidavit is otherwise not of the compliance, then
considering the specific observations as made in paragraph 7, a serious
view of the matter would be required to be taken. Accordingly, at the
request of Mr. Vanarase, matter is kept back till 2.30 p.m. The affidavit be
served on the petitioners before 1.30 p.m.
At 2.30 p.m.
3. At 2.30 p.m. Mr. Deshpande now appears and states that he is briefed
on behalf of the State Government. Mr. Deshpande submits that there is
substantial compliance of the order. He has attempted to explain as to in
what manner the order is complied. However, whatever has been
explained by Mr. Deshpande prima facie is far from convincing. The order
dated 01.08.2019 passed by this Court not only confirms the order passed
by the Industrial Court which was impugned by the State Government in
this writ petition but also has taken into consideration the interim order
which was passed by this Court on 13.04.2007 which is quoted in
paragraph 3 of the order. Further this Court, considering the subsequent
development, as noted in paragraph 4 of the said order namely the
observations made by this Court in Writ Petition No. 8908 of 2015 and
connected matters decided on 12.10.2018, has made a categorical
observation that the State Government is acting in a discriminatory manner
in the matter of regularizing the service of the petitioner. It was also
observed that the petitioner was better placed than those who were
granted relief by the judgment of Division Bench, and those who are
granted regularization were junior to the respondent. Making these
observations, the Court dismissed the petition directing the confirmation of
the order.
5-CP 379-21.odt
4. Certainly, considering the nature of the order passed by this Court, it
not only confirmed the order of the Industrial Court but also there are
other positive observations made by the Court. These observations cannot
be rendered as paper observations and they were required to be seriously
considered by the State Government and implemented by giving a benefit
to the respondent as directed by the Division Bench in similar matters as all
such observations are intended to benefit the petitioner and leading to the
dismissal of the State's writ petition.
5. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the officers instructing the learned
counsel for respondents are taking a superficial and a narrow approach
and/or are overlooking the intention and spirit of the orders passed by this
Court in confirming the order of the Industrial Court. They are
conveniently overlooking the observations of this Court.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, prima facie, it appears that the
respondents are in contempt of the order passed by this Court on
01.08.2019. Before the petition is heard for admission, a final opportunity
however needs to be given to the respondents to put their house in order
and not only to comply with the orders but to place their reply on record, if
they so desire. Hence, issue notice before admission returnable on
29.11.2021. Copy of the reply affidavit, if any, be served on the petitioner
well in advance.
7. Considering the reply and after hearing the learned counsel for the
parties, this Court would pass further appropriate orders.
8. The respondents are directed to keep ready in the Court the record
and proceeding which are relevant to the subject matter of this case.
[G. S. KULKARNI, J.]
