Bombay High Court
DR JASMIN IAS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The application for a four‑week extension is allowed, with no further extensions permitted.
Summary
The Court considered an interim application filed by Dr. Jasmin, IAS, seeking a four‑week extension to comply with an order dated 11 March 2026 in Writ Petition No. 8186 of 2023, which required reinstatement and payment of back‑wages. The State Government indicated that certain administrative approvals were still pending, causing the delay. The petitioner, Shila Samadhan Bhagat, opposed the extension, arguing that the order had already lapsed and the respondent was compelled to file a contempt petition. The Court, after evaluating the explanation about the need for approvals, granted the requested extension but warned that no further extensions would be permitted. It also directed that the contempt petition be listed on 11 September 2026 for directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to a four‑week extension to comply with the reinstatement and back‑wage order dated 11 March 2026
- Whether the contempt petition filed by the petitioner should proceed despite the pending compliance
Subjects
- contempt
- interim application
- extension of time
- administrative approval
- reinstatement
- back wages
Judgment
501 ia 1150-26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1150 OF 2026
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION [ST.] NO. 6297 OF 2026
Dr. Jasmin, IAS, CEO, ZP, Kolhapur. ...Applicant.
In the matter between :
Shila Samadhan Bhagat. ...Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others. ...Respondents.
——————
Mr. Kedar Lad, Poonam Dhotre and Indrayani Patil for the Applicant.
Mr. Saurabh P. Tandale h/f Sushant Yeramwar for the Petitioner.
Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent-State.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : August 14, 2026.
P. C. :
1. Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on production board.
2. Interim application has been iled seeking extension of four
weeks’ time to comply with order dated 11 th March 2026 passed in Writ
Petition No. 8186 of 2023. Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant
would point out the communication of State Government stating that
before the reinstatement takes place, certain administrative approvals
are required to be obtained, which will consume some time.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 (original
Patil-SR 1 of 2
501 ia 1150-26.doc
Petitioner) opposes the application and submits that order was passed
in March 2026 and there is no compliance. He would submit that
Respondent No.2 was therefore constrained to ile the contempt
petition.
4. Considering the explanation tendered for seeking administrative
approvals before the re-instatement and payment of back-wages, we
are inclined to allow this application, seeking extension of four weeks
time to comply with the order dated 11 th March 2026 passed in Writ
Petition No. 8186 of 2023. It is made clear that no further extension will
be granted. Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
5. List the Contempt Petition on 11th September 2026. To be placed
under the caption “for directions”.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Patil-SR 2 of 2
Checking your session…