Partly allowed

Union of India through the Secretary and 3 Ors. v. M.D.Pawar and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC9 Sept 2008WP/1837/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by quashing the impugned order in para 10 of a prior CAT decision, noting that the respondents had already been granted benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme via a subsequent order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order in para 10 set aside; petition disposed of with no order as to costs.

Union of India through the Secretary and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.1837 OF 2007

¶5

 Union of India & Ors. .. Petitioners.

¶6

vs.

¶7

 M.D. Pawar
 & Ors. .. Respondents.

¶8

 Mr. R.R. Shetty for Petitioners.

¶9

 Mr. G.K. Masand i/by S.K. Jain for Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: J.N. PATEL, &

¶11

 K.K. TATED, JJ.

¶12

DATE: 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2008.

¶13

 P.C.

¶14

 . The learned counsel appearing for the
 respondents had placed before us a certified copy of
 the decision dated 23.4.2008 of CAT in Contempt
 Petition No. 30/2007 in O.A. No. 16/2005 wherein the
 proceedings came to be dropped as infructuous in view
 of the fact that the petitioners have issued an
 establishment order no. 4/2008 which confers benefits
 of Assured Career Progression Scheme on the respondents
 on the conditions mentioned in the said order, a copy
 of which is also annexed along with the certified copy

¶15

¶16

 of the said order passed in the Contempt Petition. The
 same is taken on record and marked "X" collectively.
 In view of this, the learned counsel for the parties
 submit that this petition can be disposed of by setting
 aside the finding of CAT as mentioned in the concluding
 para of the impugned order i.e. para 10.

¶17

 2. We, therefore, dispose of this petition in view
 of the fact that the respondents have already been
 conferred the benefits under the ACP Scheme. As such,
 the impugned order as spelt out in para 10 is quashed
 and set aside. The petition stands disposed of
 accordingly with no order as to costs.

¶18

(J.N. Patel, J.)

¶19

(K.K. Tated J.)

Union of India through the Secretary and 3 Ors. v. M.D.Pawar and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India through the Secretary and 3 Ors. v. M.D.Pawar and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.S.Joshi and Ors. Vs the Children'S Aid Society and Ors.

Mrs. Generosa a. Annes Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 3 Others

Bombay Environmental Action Group and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Charkop Shri Ganesh Smruti Chsl

Kasabai Datta Shinde Vs the State of Mahrashtra and 2 Ors.

Mysore Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gaurang Jayendra Dholakia Vs State of Maharashtra Thru the Govt. Pl and 4 Ors.