Bombay High Court

RAJABAI PANDOJI KSHIRSAGARversusMEGHA GADGIL, GENERAL ADMN. DEPT, MANTRALAYA MUMBAI AND ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition is dismissed as the original contempt order has been complied with.

Summary

Petitioner Rajabai Pandoji Kshirsagar filed a contempt petition (No. 524 of 2012) seeking enforcement of an earlier order directing a fresh decision on her representation for a "Sanman Pension". The court observed that, over time, the order under contempt appears to have been complied with. Since the mandated action—reconsideration of the pension claim—had been carried out, the petition no longer had any operative relief to claim. Consequently, the court found no surviving issue in the contempt petition. The petition was therefore disposed of without any order for the petitioner.

Issues considered

Whether the contempt petition remains maintainable when the original contempt order has been complied with

Subjects

contempt
pension
order compliance
petition disposal
sanman pension

Judgment

                                 (1)
                                                     7 CP-524.2012.odt
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD
            7 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 524 OF 2012
                     IN WP/7111/2011

            RAJABAI PANDOJI KSHIRSAGAR
                      VERSUS
     MEGHA GADGIL, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT.,
          MANTRALAYA MUMBAI AND OTHERS
                                 …
                       None for the petitioner.
             Mr. R.D. Raut, A.G.P. for respondent-State.
                            ...
                  CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                          VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                  DATED : 7 SEPTEMBER 2026.

ORDER (Per Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, J) :

1.    None for the petitioner.

2.    It seems that with the passage of time, the order under

contempt must have been complied with, as in the order under

contempt, it was directed to decide the representation of the

petitioner for grant of “Sanman Pension”, afresh.

3.    In view of the same, nothing survives in the petition and

the contempt petition is disposed of.



(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)                (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
       JUDGE                                   JUDGE




VD_Dhirde

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…