Sunil Chandrarao Attargekar vs Rajshekhar Swami Reddy And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 14276 Bom

Bombay High Court

Sunil Chandrarao Attargekar vs Rajshekhar Swami Reddy And Another on 6 May, 2024

Author: Mangesh S. Patil

Bench: Mangesh S. Patil

                                     1                       CP / 759 / 2022


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

               22 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 759 OF 2022
                         IN WP/1996/2022

                 SUNIL CHANDRARAO ATTARGEKAR
                            VERSUS
              RAJSHEKHAR SWAMI REDDY AND ANOTHER

                                       ...
                  Advocate for petitioner : Mr. Ram S. Shinde
             Addl.G.P. for the respondent - State : Mr. M.M. Nerlikar
               Advocate for respondent no. 3 : Mr. P.R. Tandale
                                       ...

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

                           DATE           : 06 MAY 2024

PC :

Learned advocate Mr. Tandale for respondent no. 3

tenders across the bar his affidavit in reply.

2. The affidavit in reply merely points out about he having

called upon the headmaster of the concerned school to forward the

proposal for payment of interest for the delayed payment of gratuity.

By clause no. 5(c) of the operative part of the judgment and order

dated 17-08-2022 passed in writ petition no. 1996 of 2022, zilla

parishad was directed to pay interest on the delayed payment of the

pension arrears as contemplated in rule 129(B) of the Maharashtra

Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (MCS Rules). By clause 5(f), a

similar direction was issued under rule 129(A) of the MCS Rules for 2 CP / 759 / 2022

grant of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity and the zilla

parishad was directed to pay it.

3. Apart from the fact that affidavit in reply is silent as regards

the payment of interest for the delayed payment on arrears of pension,

even he is now expecting some proposal from the headmaster in

respect of interest for delayed payment of gratuity.

4. We are not concerned with the procedure. Once this Court

had directed respondent no. 3 and the zilla parishad to pay interest,

both, on arrears of salary as well as gratuity, unless compliance is

made within next four weeks, we would be constrained to issue notice

to respondent no. 3 for contempt of Court.

5. Stand over to 11 June 2024.

6. If the petitioner is able to undertake the calculations, he

may furnish it to respondent no. 3.

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

arp/