Dismissed

Shamsundar Pandurang Kulkarni v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Apr 2007WP/2249/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court rejected a writ petition filed by a retired engineer claiming a cash prize and advance increments. The court held the tribunal was correct in dismissing both grounds, as the petitioner did not meet the necessary benchmark for the prize and was not in service when the increment scheme was active. No interference with the impugned order was called for.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shamsundar Pandurang Kulkarni Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 (-1-)

¶2

hvn

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO. 2249 OF 2007

¶5

 Shri. Shamsundar Pandurang Kulkarni ... Petitioner

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 State of Maharashtra ...Respondents

¶8

 Mr. Sanjay Kshirsagar for Petitioner.

¶9

CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&
R.M. SAVANT,JJ.
DATED: APRIL 09, 2007
P.C.:

¶10

 . The Petitioner retired from service on 1.4.1997.

¶11

 The Petitioner had filed Original Application on the
 two grounds, firstly that the claim made by he
 Petitioner is based on G.R. dated 21.7.2003 passed
 by the Irrigation Department to award a cash prize
 of one lakh rupees from the Chief Minister Fund to
 the Engineers who by their efforts minimize the
 expenditure and cost of project and instrumental for
 saving crores of rupees for the State Exchequer.

¶12

 The second ground is in respect of non-granting two
 advance increments as per the circulars issued by
 the Government of Maharashtra in G.A.D. being No.
 SRV/1072/D dated 11.2.1974 and 29.10.1990 regarding
 grant of advance increment to the government servant
 for his outstanding work. The learned tribunal

¶13

 after considering the benchmark for the same,
 rightly held that the Petitioner does not fall in

¶14

 (-2-)

¶15

 the Benchmark and hence, rejected the first ground.

¶16

 The second ground came to be rejected as the
 Petitioner was not in service when such scheme was
 implemented. Merely because, some time earlier the
 Petitioner had detected some irregularities in the
 department based upon which some Officers were
 chargesheeted cannot be a basis for considering the
 Petitioner more so, when he was not in service at
 the time when the said G.R. was introduced. We,
 therefore, are not inclined to interfere with the
 impugned order of the tribunal. The said order, in
 the facts and circumstances, do not suffer any error
 apparent on the face of the record. Hence, no

¶17

 interference is called for. Petition rejected.

¶18

 (R.M. SAVANT,J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)

Shamsundar Pandurang Kulkarni v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shamsundar Pandurang Kulkarni v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammedwalla Trust and Anr. Vs the Regional Director, Western Region Committee Ncte and Anr.

Raje Vijaysinh Dafale Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Ors. Vs Regional Deputy Director (Sugar) and Joint Registrar Co-Op.Societies, Kolhapur and Ors.

Pitamber Dayaram Thakur and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramesh Babaji Jarhad Vs the Chairman / Secretary- Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Adivasi Seva Mandal and Ors.

Babu Shahu Ghosh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sajid Saifuddin Vs the Modern Education Society and Ors.