Bombay High Court

PURBHAJI RAMJI TULEversusMEGHA GADGIL, GENERAL ADMN. DEPT, MANTRALAYA MUMBAI AND ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition is disposed as the order under contempt has been complied with by the State deciding the claim afresh.

Summary

Purbhaji Ramji Tule filed a contempt petition against the State, alleging non‑compliance with an earlier order directing the State Government to reconsider his claim for a Sanman Pension. The State responded with an affidavit stating that the claim had been rejected and that the decision was communicated to the petitioner on 19 January 2013. The Court observed that the State had complied with the contempt order by deciding the claim afresh, even though the decision was adverse to the petitioner. Consequently, the Court held that no issue remained to be adjudicated in the contempt petition. The petition was therefore disposed of.

Issues considered

What is the effect of the State's decision on the contempt petition seeking compliance with the order to reconsider the Sanman Pension claim?

Subjects

contempt
Sanman Pension
order compliance
petition disposal
state liability

Judgment

                                  (1)
                                                      8 CP-525.2012.odt
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
            8 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 525 OF 2012
                     IN WP/7081/2011

                 PURBHAJI RAMJI TULE
                       VERSUS
     MEGHA GADGIL, GENERAL ADMN. DEPT, MANTRALAYA
                  MUMBAI AND OTHERS
                                  …
                        None for the petitioner.
             Mr. A.S. Shinde, 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.     In the order under contempt it was directed to State

Government to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of

“Sanman Pension”, afresh.         Accordingly, affidavit-in-reply is

filed by respondent No.1, by which, it is stated that the claim of

the petitioner is rejected and the same is communicated to the

petitioner by letter dated 19.01.2013.

3.     As the order under contempt is complied with by

deciding the claim afresh, nothing survives in this contempt

petition and it is disposed of.



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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…