SUDHAKAR NAMDEORAO GUMBLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 8.1.2010 in Contempt Petition No. 7 of 2009 passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur, (for short Tribunal) dropping contempt proceedings against the respondents after holding that the respondents have fully complied with the directions issued by the Tribunal in Original Application No. 70 of 2008 decided on 8.4.2008, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) In support of writ petition, Ms.Sharwari Deshpande learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that in O.A. No. 70 of 2008 decided on 8.4.2008 the Tribunal at Mumbai Bench held that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion as he was found fit on 5.1.2000 and was therefore entitled to the deemed date namely 5.1.2000, i.e. the date of his selection for promotion. According to her, this judgment and order passed by the Tribunal having become final and conclusive between the parties, in no way the finding recorded in the said judgment or the operative part, i.e. the directions issued, could be touched by the Tribunal in contempt proceedings, as has been done in the impugned judgment and order. According to her, the said date namely 5.1.2000 has been changed to 30.8.2004 in contempt proceedings by the Tribunal which is wholly without jurisdiction. Per contra, Mrs.Dangre, learned Additional Government