Bombay High Court
Smt. Gokula Vilas Patil vs The Education Officer (Primary), Pay ... on 25 March, 2019
Author: Dama Seshadri Naidu
Bench: B. R. Gavai, Dama Seshadri Naidu
(18)-WP-5110-12.doc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5110 OF 2012
Smt. Gokula Vilas Patil ..Petitioner
Versus
The Education Officer (Primary)
Pay and Provident Fund Unit,
Zilla Parishad, Sangli and others ..Respondents
Mr. C. G. Gavnekar a/w Mr. Ashutosh Gavnekar & Mr. G. S.
Hiranandani, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for Respondent Nos.4 & 6 to 10 - State.
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI &
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.
DATE : 25th MARCH, 2019 P.C. 1] Today, the matter is kept for compliance of the order dated 13th December 2017, passed by the Division Bench of this Court (B. R. Gavai & B. P. Colabawalla, JJ).
2] By the order dated 13th December 2017, while holding that the action of the Respondents denying benefit of pension to the Petitioner was not sustainable in law, this Court had directed the State to start paying pension to the Petitioner from the month of January 2018 to be worked out on the basis of her last drawn salary. We had further directed that all the arrears to which the Petitioner would be entitled in view of the aforesaid, shall be paid to her within a period of six months from the date of the said order.
BGP. 1 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2019 00:47:33 :::
(18)-WP-5110-12.doc.
3] We had also directed the Principal Secretary to inquire
into the matter as to who was the officer responsible for depriving the pension to the Petitioner. He was directed to do so by 13 th June 2018.
4] Though the said period has lapsed long back, it appears that on account of paucity of time, the earlier Bench could not take up the matter and the matter has seen light of the day only today. On a specific query, as to whether the order has been complied with, the learned AGP states that the order has not been complied with in respect of the payment of pension, since the review of the order dated 13th December 2017, passed by the Division Bench of Court is sought.
5] Perusal of the record would reveal that though the Review Petition has been filed in the month of June 2018, it has not been circulated on a single day. When both the judges i.e. one of us (B. R. Gavai, J) and B. P. Colabawalla, J, are very much available in Mumbai for hearing Review Petition, there is no reason as to why the Review Application not circulated for a long time. Unless the order sought to be challenged is stayed, the Respondents are duty BGP. 2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2019 00:47:33 ::: (18)-WP-5110-12.doc.
bound to comply with the same.
6] In that view of the matter, issue suo-moto notice against the Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Mumbai-400 032, returnable on 1st April 2019 at 03:00 p.m., calling upon him to show-cause as to why an action should not be taken against him for committing contempt of the order dated 13 th December 2017 passed by this Court.
7] It is made clear that non-compliance of the said direction prior to the returnable date would amount to aggravated contempt. It is therefore left to the sweet will of the noticee as to whether he would like to comply with the order dated 13 th December 2017, prior to the returnable date and purge the contempt or to face the proceedings for contempt. 8] The Registrar (Judicial-I) to ensure that the notice is served upon noticee prior to the returnable date. 9] The learned AGP, if he considers appropriate, may communicate this order to the noticee.
[DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
BGP. 3 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2019 00:47:33 :::