Remanded

Shri Anwar Abdul Sattar v. the Dy. Director of Education and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC6 Aug 2007WP/993/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay in a writ petition concerning pension and retirement benefits directed the respondent to constitute a proper representation from the petitioner within four weeks, with the matter to be disposed of within eight weeks after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to dispose of the grievances on merits within eight weeks after hearing, following a proper representation made within four weeks.

Shri Anwar Abdul Sattar Vs the Dy. Director… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 ((-1-))

¶2

HVN

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO. 993 OF 2007

¶6

 Shri. Anwar Abdul Sattar ... Petitioner

¶7

 Versus

¶8

 Dy. Director of Edcuation
 and Ors. ... Respondents

¶9

 Mr. Sunil Dighe for Petitioner.

¶10

 Mr. P.N. Shastri for R. Nos. 3 to 5.

¶11

CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED: AUGUST 06, 2007

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

 . Rule. Notice waived on behalf of Respondent Nos.
 3 to 5. For the view tobe taken, notice on
 respondent Nos. 1 and 2 dispensed with.

¶14

 . It is the case of the Petitioner that he has
 voluntarily retired from the service of the school
 run by Sadhana Edcuation society. He has two
 grievances, firstly that subsistence allowance has
 not been properly computed and paid and secondly
 that he was not fixed in the correct pay scale
 pursuant to recommendations of the 5th Pay
 Commission and for consequential arrears.

¶15

 ((-2-))

¶16

 . Considering the above, we direct the Petitioner

¶17

 to make proper representation with respondent No. 1
 crystalizying his grievances. If such
 representation is made within four weeks from today,
 the respondent No. 1 after hearing respondent Nos.
 3 to 5 and Petitioner to dispose of the same
 according to law, at any rate not latter than eight
 weeks from the date of the receipt of such
 representation.

¶18

 . Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to
 costs.

¶19

 (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)

Shri Anwar Abdul Sattar v. the Dy. Director of Education and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Anwar Abdul Sattar v. the Dy. Director of Education and 4 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

The Commissioner of Income-Tax Central-Ii Vs Shri Ajay P Bafna

The Commissioner of Income-Tax-Central,Ii Vs Shri Ajay P Bafna

The Commissioner Ofincome-Tax-Ii,Mum. Vs Shri Ajay P.Bafna

M. H. Patel Vs a. C. I .T. 24(2) and Ors.

Golden Plaza Sra Chs Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Commissioner of Income Tax, City-Iii, Mumbai Vs M/S. Jindal Dye Intermediate Pvt. Ltd.