Contempt Petition No. 264 of 2015. Case: Asha Vs T.S.K. Reddy and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Contempt Petition No. 264 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: S.D. Kotkar, Advocate and For Respondents: B.H. Dangre, Advocate |
| Judges | A. S. Chandurkar, J. |
| Issue | Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 - Sections 48, 6(2); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 151; Constitution of India - Article 227; Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 10, 12, 2(b); Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Sections 60, 61, 62, 63, 63(1) |
| Judgement Date | February 12, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
A. S. Chandurkar, J.
-
The question that arises for consideration in this contempt petition filed under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, the Act of 1971) is whether the Commissioner while considering a complaint filed under Section 62 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, the Act of 1995) is a "court" for the purposes of Section 10 of the Act of 1971.
-
The petitioner was appointed as a Forest Guard in the Forest Department of the State of Maharashtra. Her appointment was on a post reserved for handicapped persons. The petitioner sought promotion on the post of Forester and on said claim not being accepted, she filed a complaint under Sections 62 and 63 of the Act of 1995 before the Commissioner. By order dated 2-7-2015, the Commissioner partly allowed the complaint and directed the Chief Conservator of Forest to examine the case of the petitioner and considered her claim for promotion in accordance with the prevailing rules and policies. Said exercise was directed to be conducted within a period of two months from the receipt of said order. As no steps pursuant to aforesaid directions were taken, the petitioner has filed the present contempt petition.
-
Shri S.D. Kotkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the Chief Conservator of Forest and his subordinate officers were directed to take a decision with regard to the claim of the petitioner for grant of promotion within a period of two months from receipt of said order, the same was not done. It was submitted that the Commissioner was a "court" under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of 1971 and, therefore, as aforesaid directions were not complied, the concerned authorities were guilty of having committed "civil contempt" under Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971. It was further submitted that in Writ Petition No. 2635/2013 - State of Maharashtra Vs. Arvind M. Katkar, decided at the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court the question as regards entitlement of an handicapped person for being promoted was considered and it was held that if the promotional post of Vanpal was not available then the promotion could be granted on an equivalent post. He submitted that despite aforesaid position, the case of the petitioner was not being considered and the directions issued by the Commissioner under the Act of 1995 were being disregarded.
Relying upon the provisions of the Act of 1995, it was submitted that the Commissioner would be a "court" for the purposes of Section 10 of the Act of 1971. The learned Counsel...
To continue reading
Request your trial