AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
. Heard Mr. S. S. Jagtap, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. V. H. Kedar, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2.
By way of the present Contempt Petition, the Petitioner has raised grievance that present Respondent did not release his leave encashment for 445 days as per the order and directions issued by this Court vide order dated 7/8/2018 in Writ Petition No. 5793/2018 and order dated 4/10/2021 in Civil Application (CAW) No. 749/2020. The Petitioner has mainly relied upon the order dated 4/10/2021, particularly paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the order. According to the Petitioner, as per the order of this Court, Respondents were obliged to grant him the leave encashment of 445 days i.e. for the period from 27/8/2003 to 13/3/2014.
The learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that there is no disobedience on the part of the Respondent. According to him, the order dated 4/10/2021 is outcome of the main order dated 7/8/2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 5793/2017. So it is necessary to consider the order dtd. 7/8/2018, wherein no such directions were given, therefore, the alleged disobedience against the Respondents is misconceived.
The learned Counsel for Respondent No.2, during the course of argument, has placed on record the communication dated 4/10/2023 issued by the Respondent No.2, which is taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for identification. The perusal of the letter shows that all the statutory benefits have been disbursed in the name of present Petitioner and specifically stated that in the order of this Court there is no mention of calculation of leave encashment. So also, as per service record of Petitioner there are no leave balance on his credit. As per service rules and circulars only leave can be encashed upto limit of 300 days.
In the light of above submissions made by the learned Counsel for both sides, I have perused both the orders. The perusal of order dated 7/8/2018, which is relied upon by this Court while deciding Civil Application No. 749/2020 on 4/10/2021, clearly shows that said order came to be passed on the submissions made by the parties before this Court. The basic order in the present Petition is dated 7/8/2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 5793/2017 and in the said order there is no where stated that Petitioner is entitled for the leave encashment. On the contrary, the observations, if looked into, it is clear that this Court has recorded that during the period of stay, Petitioner was not gainfully employed, in view of same, Respondent was directed to pay 50% of the salary for the period from 27/8/2023 to 13/3/2014.
It is nowhere stated in the order dtd. 7/8/2018 that the Petitioner in pursuance of the same, would be entitled for all consequential benefits of service including the leave encashment. Hence, in absence of any observation or direction, it cannot be said that there is any disobedience on the part of Respondent in the matter.
From the contention of the Petitioner, it seems that the Petitioner is drawing conclusion that as the back wages were directed to be paid, the Petitioner is entitled for a leave encashment. The Petitioner has to pursue separate remedy to get recover the amount of leave encashment, if so permissible, under the relevant provision of law. But, in any case, in contempt jurisdiction he is not entitled for any such relief which was not part of order passed by this Court.
In view of above, I find no merit in the present Petition. Hence, the Contempt Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.