Vyankat Parasu Jagdale and ors. Vs. Yeshwant Vithu Jagdale and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
contempt of court - breach of undertaking - section 2 of contempt of courts act, 1971 - petitioners had given undertaking that they would not obstruct respondents from using suit well till final disposal of suit - respondent alleged that petitioners acted in breach of undertaking and disobeyed injunction order - lower court held petitioners guilty and ordered for detention of petitioners for ten days - appeal against such order - high court suspended impugned order of lower court subject to certain condition - undertaking given by petitioners continue to operate against petitioners till culmination of proceedings before apex court. - article 14: [r.m. lodha, s.a. bobde & s.b. deshmukh, jj] retiral benefit - classification between part time lecturers and full time teachers held, the part-time lecturers form a class by themselves and the said classification between part time lecturers and full-time teachers for purpose of granting retrial benefits cannot be said to be unconstitutional or bad in law -- consumer protection act, 1986 -- article 16; right to pension held, it is true that the pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer. however, the right of pension is always subject to the rules. it is not inherent in the employment. though pension is a payment for a past service rendered and it is a social welfare measure, but it is well settled that an employee is not entitled to pension de hors the rules. in the instant case the government resolution dated 21.7.1983 held that the said pension scheme is only applicable to the employees covered therein. a part time teacher, unfortunately, is not covered by the said scheme and, therefore, not entitled. retirement benefit; differentiation between full time teachers and part-time lecturers government resolution providing for retrial benefits to full-time teaching staff part-time lecturer were not entitled to said benefit held, it is true that the pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer. however, the right of pension is always subject to the rules. it is not inherent in the employment. though pension is a payment for a past service rendered and it is a social welfare measure, but it is well settled that an employee is not entitled to pension de hors the rules. in the instant case the government resolution dated 21.7.1983 held that the said pension scheme is only applicable to the employees covered therein. a part time teacher, unfortunately, is not covered by the said scheme and, therefore, not entitled. - 332 of 1990. 3. the said application was filed by the respondents alleging that the petitioners original defendants inspite of injunction granted by the court below as well as the undertaking filed by them acted in breach of the undertakings and disobeyed the injunction order. it is not in dispute that the petitioners have given undertaking that they would not obstruct the respondents from using the suit well till the hearing and final disposal of the suit.a.m. khanwilkar, j.1. this writ petition, under article 227 of the constitution of india, takes exception to the order passed by the 3rd additional district judge, satara dated 23-1-1995 in misc. appeal no. 170 of 1992.2. the said misc. civil appeal was filed by the petitioners against the order passed by the 2nd joint civil judge, j.d., karad dated 16-7-1992 exh. 101 in regular civil suit no. 332 of 1990.3. the said application was filed by the respondents alleging that the petitioners original defendants inspite of injunction granted by the court below as well as the undertaking filed by them acted in breach of the undertakings and disobeyed the injunction order. the court below, after examining the record, held the petitioners guilty and therefore ordered that the petitioners defendant nos. 1 to 4 be detained in civil prison for a period of ten days. the court below issued warrant of arrest and detention of the petitioners defendant nos. 1 to 4 on depositing the subsistence allowance of rs. 1,000/- by the respondents in the court.4. this order has been confirmed in the appeal, which was filed by the petitioners before the district court. it is not in dispute that the petitioners have given undertaking that they would not obstruct the respondents from using the suit well till the hearing and final disposal of the suit. the petitioners have also undertaken not to water the suit way or place any obstruction in the suit way till the hearing of the suit. the petitioners have filed additional affidavit before this hon'ble court on 13-4-1995 and have reiterated their abovesaid undertakings. the said affidavit forms part of the writ petition. in view of the undertaking given before this hon'ble court i would think it appropriate to suspend the impugned order passed by the 2nd joint civil judge, j.d., karad, dated 16-7-1992 subject to certain condition. the undertaking given by the petitioners before this court shall continue to operate against the petitioners till the culmination of the proceedings between the parties upto the apex court, if need arises. in case the petitioners disobey the undertaking given before this court, the order passed by the 2nd joint civil judge, j.d., karad dated 16-7-1992 shall came into effect forthwith and the petitioners be detained in the civil prison for period of 10 days.5. with these observations the petition stands disposed of. no order as to costs. parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by sheristedar of the court.