Remanded

Vijay D.More and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Feb 2006WP/6006/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court notes the Petitioner claims entitlement to regularisation as a Class III employee under Apex Court guidelines, despite the tribunal concluding Class IV status. Finding the tribunal overlooked this critical aspect, the order is set aside and remanded.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 3.2.2005 is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the tribunal for reconsideration after hearing the parties.

Vijay D.More and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO. 6006 OF 2005

¶5

 Vijay D. More and anr. ... Petitioners

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 The State of Mah. and Ors. Respondents

¶8

 Ms. Ranjana Todankar i/by S.S. Pakale for
 Petitioners.

¶9

 Mr. C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P. for R. Nos. 1 to 3.

¶10

CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,JJ.
DATED : FEBRUARY 13, 2006
 P.C.

¶11

 . Rule. Heard forthwith.

¶12

 . The Petitioners have approached this court
 against the order dated 3.2.2005 whereby the O.A.
 filed by the Petitioner herein has been rejected.

¶13

 The tribunal has arrived at the conclusion that the
 Petitioner held the post of Class IV and relied on
 the averments made by the Petitioner in Writ

¶14

 Petition NO. 4546 of 1997.

¶15

 . It is the contention of the Petitioner that

¶16

¶17

 considering the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil
 Appeal No. 3070 of 1999, to which the Petitioners
 were parties, the Apex Court had accepted the
 statement made on behalf of the State of
 Maharashtra that those who had completed 240 days
 of service, they would be regularised. It is the
 case of the Petitioners that they have worked
 between 29.9.1980 and 28.11.1985 as Class III
 employees. That being the case, having completed
 240 days of Class III service, they should be
 regularised as Class III and not as Class IV
 employees.

¶18

 . It appears that this aspect of the matter was

¶19

 not considered by the tribunal. Considering that
 we set aside impugned order dated 3.2.2005 and
 remand the matter to the tribunal for

¶20

 reconsideration after hearing the parties and pass
 an order afresh. It will be open to the parties to
 file additional statements, if in law, they are so
 advised. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order
 as to costs.

¶21

(F.I. REBELLO,J.)

¶22

¶23

(DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.)

Vijay D.More and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay D.More and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y.S. Pardhye and Ors. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Anandrao Sonawane Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Sadhu Bhikoba Pandharkar Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Sadhu Bhikoba Pandharkar Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Laxman Tulsiram Pawar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.