Bombay High Court
UTTAMRAO MADHUKAR SARDARversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The court held that no contempt had occurred as the respondents had complied with the stay order.
Summary
The petitioner, Uttamrao Madhukar Sardar, filed a contempt petition alleging that the State of Maharashtra and other respondents failed to comply with a stay order that required his continued service as Junior Clerk and payment of his salary pending the disposal of a writ petition. The respondents, through an affidavit, demonstrated that the approval for his appointment was granted on 7 September 2012 and that his salary had been paid regularly via the Treasury, Jalgaon, including a specific cheque dated 26 November 2012. The court examined the affidavit and found that the respondents had fully complied with the stay order. Consequently, the court held that there was no basis for contempt. The contempt petition was therefore disposed of, and the rule was discharged.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondents committed contempt of court by allegedly failing to comply with the stay order directing continuation of the petitioner’s service and payment of salary.
Subjects
- contempt
- stay order
- service termination
- salary payment
- compliance
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42130
1 905 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 265 OF 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
905 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 265 OF 2012
IN WP/721/2010
UTTAMRAO MADHUKAR SARDAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS
...
Adv. A. A. Mukhedkar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Adv. A. S. Shinde, AGP for Respondents-State
Adv. Renuka Pawar h/f Adv. V. P. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.
3 and 4.
...
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
DATED : 09/09/2026
ORDER (Per Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, J.) :-
. In the order of which the disobedience is alleged, stay was
granted to the termination of the services of the petitioner as well
as to the order of the respondent No.2 refusing approval to the
appointment of the petitioner and the respondents were directed to
continue the petitioner on the post of Junior Clerk till the final
disposal of the writ petition. It was also directed that the monthly
salary should be paid to the petitioner till the disposal of the
petition.
2. Accordingly, respondent No.2, Education Officer has filed
affidavit-in-reply, wherein it is stated that the approval to the
2 905 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 265 OF 2012
services of the petitioner as Junior Clerk was granted by order
dated 07.09.2012 and salary bills were forwarded to the Treasury,
Jalgaon for encashment through bank account vide cheque No.
753223 dated 26.11.2012 and thereafter, the regular salary of the
petitioner is being paid till date.
3. In view of the compliance of the order, nothing survives in
the contempt petition and the same stands disposed of.
4. Rule stands discharged.
( VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. )
shivani/
Checking your session…