Shrihari Ramrao Dhond vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 22115 Bom

Bombay High Court

Shrihari Ramrao Dhond vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 1 August, 2024

Author: Mangesh S. Patil

Bench: Mangesh S. Patil

                                   1                    WP / 2163 / 2022


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 1014 WRIT PETITION NO. 2163 OF 2022

                    SHRIHARI RAMRAO DHOND
                            VERSUS
             THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                                      ...
        Advocate for petitioner : Mr. G.V. Wani h/f. Mr. S.S. Randive
             AGP for the respondent - State : Mr. R.S. Wani
           Advocate for respondents 4 to 6 : Mr. S.S. Thombre
                                      ...

                          CORAM        : MANGESH S. PATIL &
                                         SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.

                          DATE         : 01 AUGUST 2024

PC :

             Heard both the sides.

2. An innocuous order to the respondent - Joint Director

(Higher Education) passed by the University and College Tribunal

initially fastening the liability to pay to the petitioner arrears of salary

due for the period he was under suspension and in the event of failure

of the management to pay, expecting the Joint Director, to take steps

for making necessary deductions from the grant payable to the

respondent - College, is not obeyed by the Joint Director.

3. We are taken by surprise by the manner in which again the

affidavit in reply is filed by the Joint Director (Higher Education). He 2 WP / 2163 / 2022

seems to be clearly oblivious of the responsibility pursuant to the

directions of the Tribunal.

4. More importantly, the petitioner had filed a contempt

proceedings before the University and College Tribunal wherein even

the present Joint Director was a party. Though he was apparently

excluded, as per the directions of the University Tribunal in the original

judgment and order, he was held liable and responsible to make

necessary recovery of the amount for being paid to the petitioner, on

failure of the management.

5. Expecting that a good sense would prevail with the

respondent no. 5, we direct him to take appropriate steps in the light of

clauses (v) and (vii) of the operative part of the judgment and order of

the University and College Tribunal dated 29-10-2020. We adjourn the

matter to 29-08-2024.

6. If no progress is made by the Joint Director by then, we

may be constrained to initiate a contempt proceedings.

     [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ]                    [ MANGESH S. PATIL ]
            JUDGE                                    JUDGE

arp/