Bombay High Court
PANDURANG ABAJI GAIKWADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTGRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The communication was addressed to and received by the petitioner, and therefore the contempt petition stands disposed.
Summary
The petitioner, Pandurang Abaji Gaikwad, filed a contempt petition challenging a communication dated 17 March 2026 which stated that his applications for the post of Lower Assistant, Grade‑C had been decided and that he was ineligible for salary from 18 August 2006. The petitioner claimed he never received the communication, while the respondent produced the document showing it was addressed to him. The court examined the receipt of the communication and found that it had indeed been received by the petitioner. The court noted that the petitioner could still challenge the substantive order if aggrieved. Consequently, the contempt petition was dismissed as there was no contempt of court.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner was duly served with the communication dated 17‑03‑2026.
- Whether the filing of the contempt petition is maintainable in view of the service of the communication.
Subjects
- contempt of court
- service of notice
- government employee
- salary eligibility
- procedural law
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42157-DB
947 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 358 OF 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
947 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 358 OF 2026
IN WP/13986/2025
Pandurang Abaji Gaikwad
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
__________________________________________________________
• Adv. Amol Narsingrao Patale for the Petitioner
• Mr. A. S. Shinde, Addl.G.P. for State
• Adv. Santosh Baburao Pulkundwar for Respondent
No. 2
__________________________________________________________
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 08, 2026
PER COURT :
1) Heard.
2) The learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 has
placed on record communication dated 17.03.2026,
mentioning that the applications of the petitioner dated
31.07.2025 and 08.08.2025 have been decided and that
the petitioner was held ineligible for receiving salary with
effect from 18.08.2006 for the post of Lower Assistant,
Grade-C.
3) The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly
resisted the same on the ground that the aforesaid
communication has not been received by the petitioner.
Komal Kamble Page| 1 of 2
947 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 358 OF 2026
4) However, the said communication appears to be
addressed to the petitioner and the petitioner has received
the same.
5) The petitioner may challenge the said order if he
is aggrieved by such refusal.
6) The said communication is taken on record and
marked "X" for identification.
7) In view of the above, the Contempt Petition
stands disposed of.
(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Komal Kamble Page| 2 of 2
Checking your session…