Allowed

Shri Arvind Kashinath Kulkarni v. 1. State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC19 Aug 2004WP/6571/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition by an Assistant Civil Sectional Engineer seeking direction to consider his representation on pay scale differences. Unified with a group of identical petitions decided in W.P. No.719 of 1995, the court granted liberty to make representation, directed the respondent to consider it after hearing, and clarified no adverse order affecting promotion could be passed wi

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to make representation; Respondent directed to consider same, pass reasoned order after hearing, and no adverse order affecting promotion permissible without hearing.

Shri Arvind Kashinath Kulkarni Vs 1. State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2004)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.6571 OF 2004

¶5

 Shri Arvind K. Kulkarni .. Petitioner

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

 Mr.P.B.Shaligram for the petitioner

¶9

 Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P. for the respondent no.1

¶10

 CORAM: A.P.SHAH &
 S.U.KAMDAR, JJ

¶11

 DATED: 19TH AUGUST, 2004

¶12

 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.U.KAMDAR, J.):

¶13

 1. By the present petition, the petitioner is
 seeking a writ of mandamus and or direction against
 respondent no.1 and 2 to consider his
 representation expeditiously and pass necessary
 orders thereon. Some of the material facts of the

¶14

 present case briefly enumerated are as under:

¶15

 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Assistant to

¶16

¶17

 Extension Officer. On 9th December 1965, he was

¶18

 promoted as Jr. Engineer. Thereafter he was
 further promoted as Sectional Engineer. The pay
 scale for the said Sectional Engineer was given
 from the year 1st April 1981 to 12th September
 1990. The Government issued a G.R. giving various
 benefits to Sectional Engineer. On 17th November
 1994, the Government issued another G.R. and
 cancelled earlier G.R. dated 12th September 1990
 with retrospective effect. On 30th April 2004, the
 petitioner voluntarily retired from the post CF
 Sectional Engineer. By the present petition, he is
 claiming that his representation for difference in
 pay scale fixed for a period of 1981-84 should be
 considered by the respondents.

¶19

 3. There were 37 identical Writ Petitions filed in
 this court by the employees who joined their
 services as Technical Assistants and by an order
 and Judgment dated 7th April 2003, this court has
 passed various directions interalia giving the
 petitioners a liberty to make representation and
 further directing the respondents to consider and

¶20

¶21

 pass appropriate order thereon.

¶22

 4. In view of the fact that the present case is

¶23

 similar to the said group of Writ Petitions which
 are decided by the Division Bench of this court
 (Hon’ble Div.Bench Justice R.M.Lodha and A.S.Aguiar
 JJ) by an order dated 7th April 2003 in Writ
 Petition No.719 of 1995 and other connected writ
 petitions, we also pass the following directions
 and dispose of this Writ Petition as under:

¶24

 (i) The Petitioner is given liberty to make
 representation to Respondent no.1 for

¶25

 reconsideration of the entire aspect concerning
 issuance of the Government Resolution dated
 17.11.1994.

¶26

 (ii) We direct Respondent No.1 to objectively
 consider the said representation and pass reasoned
 order after hearing the Petitioner.

¶27

 (iii) We clarify that no adverse order shall be
 passed affecting the promotion conferred upon the

¶28

¶29

 Petitioner to the post of Sectional Engineer
 without hearing him.

¶30

 (iv) No costs.

¶31

 Parties to act on a copy of this order duly
 authenticated by the Court Stenographer.

Shri Arvind Kashinath Kulkarni v. 1. State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Arvind Kashinath Kulkarni v. 1. State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Wahab Habiburrahman Vs Malegaon Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Ravi Pandurang Mhatre Vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Sanskrit Vidya Mandir Shikshan Sanstha Vs Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Neha Dilip Doshi Vs the Chief Enginner (KOP2) and Ors.

Shri Arvind Kashinath Kulkarni Vs 1. State of Maharashtra and Another

Nevitad Distilleries Private Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.