Bombay High Court

RAHIMBEE ABDUL WAHABversusTHE SECRETARY MINISTRYOF DEFENCE AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The court held that the order under contempt was complied with, and therefore the contempt petition was disposed of.

Summary

The petitioner, RahimbEE Abdul Wahab, filed a contempt petition alleging that the Ministry of Defence had failed to comply with a court order dated 21 October 2010, which required a decision on his representation dated 15 November 2010 within four months. The petitioner claimed that although a decision was eventually made, only a 50% pension was awarded, which he considered insufficient. The court examined whether the order under contempt had been complied with. Finding that the representation had indeed been decided, albeit with a reduced pension, the court concluded that the statutory deadline had been met. Consequently, the contempt petition was disposed of, with the court granting the petitioner liberty to challenge the pension decision if he remains aggrieved.

Issues considered

Did the Ministry of Defence commit contempt by failing to decide the representation within the four‑month period prescribed by the court order?
Has the order dated 21 October 2010 been complied with for the purposes of the contempt petition?

Subjects

contempt of court
pension entitlement
Ministry of Defence
writ petition
order compliance
judicial discretion

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41164

                                                                             71.13CP

                                                1

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          903 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.71 OF 2013
                             IN WRIT PETITION NO.7176 OF 2009
                                   RAHIMBEE ABDUL WAHAB
                                              VERSUS
                      THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE & OTHERS
                                                 ...
                      Advocate for the petitioner : Mr.K.M.Nagarkar [Online]
                            AGP for Respondent-State : Mr.N.B.Patil
                                                 …
                                       CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
                                                     VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,JJ.

                                      DATE     :    04.09.2026


                 PER COURT : [Per : Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, J.]


                 1]          In the order under contempt the petitioner has
                 alleged disobedience of the order dated 21.10.2010 by which
                 representation dated 15.11.2010 was to be decided within
                 four months.

                 2]          Learned Advocate for the petitioner states that the
                 representation is decided but only 50% pension is granted to
                 the petitioner.

                 3]          As the order under contempt is complied with, the
                 Contempt Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner
                 to challenge the decision if he is aggrieved by the same.


                 [VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV]             [SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE]
                         JUDGE                            JUDGE

                 DDC

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…