Disposed

Minal Manohar Nachankar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Mar 2008WP/3509/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitioners, long-serving employees not absorbed due to lack of typing qualification, filed petitions against non-decision on their representation. The High Court ordered the Principal Secretary to decide the representation expeditiously, maintain the status quo, and ensure a hearing opportunity before the final decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Principal Secretary to decide pending representation expeditiously; maintenance of status quo; order for personal appearance before authority.

Minal Manohar Nachankar Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3489 OF 2004

¶3

Mr. Shankar N. Mamidi

¶4

...... Petitioner.

¶5

v/s

¶6

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶7

...... Respondents.

¶8

Shri A.K. Jalisatgi with Mr. A.B. Desai for the Petitioner. Shri S.R. Nargolkar, AGP for respondent No.1.

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.3504 OF 2004

¶10

Mrs. Rekha Mangesh Bhalerao

¶11

...... Petitioner.

¶12

v/s.

¶13

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶14

...... Respondents.

¶15

Shri A.K. Jalisatgi with Mr. A.B. Desai for the Petitioner. Shri S.R. Nargolkar, AGP for respondent No.1.

¶16

WRIT PETITION NO.3509 OF 2004

¶17

Mrs. Minal Manohar Nachankar

¶18

..... Petitioner.

¶19

v/s.

¶20

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶21

..... Respondents.

¶22

Shri A.K. Jalisatgi with Mr. A.B. Desai for the Petitioner. Shri S.R. Nargolkar, AGP for respondent No.1.

¶23

¶24

CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATE : 25th March, 2008

¶25

P.C.:

¶26

After having heard the learned Counsel for both sides for some time, we find that the Petitioners are working from 1984, 1985 and 1986 continuously and that they have not been absorbed as has been done in the case of other employees only on the ground that at the time of their appointment, they were not having typing qualification. These employees are admittedly continuously in service. They have made representation to the State Government dated 19/01/1998. Admittedly, this representation has not been decided yet. In our opinion, considering the service rendered by the Petitioners, their representation deserves to be sympathetically considered by the Government. In our opinion, therefore, the following order would meet the ends of justice:-

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

(i) We direct that the Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration (Service) of the Government of Maharashtra shall decide the representation dated 19/01/1998, copy of which is annexed at Exhibit- I to

¶29

¶30

the Writ Petition No.3489/2004 as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

¶31

(ii) Till the representation is decided, the present position which is in existence in relation to the services of the petitioners shall not be disturbed.

¶32

(iii) To facilitate the decision on the representation of the petitioners, the petitioners shall appear before the above mentioned authority on 15/04/2008 with a copy of their representation dated 19/01/1998, any additional material on which they propose to rely and a copy of this order. Thereafter, the Principal Secretary shall decide the representation as directed above in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from 15/04/2008 on which date the Petitioners shall appear before the Principal Secretary.

¶33

(iv) The representation of the Petitioners shall be decided by the authority without being influenced by any previous orders passed. In case, the decision on the

¶34

¶35

representation goes against the petitioners, they will be entitled to adopt remedies that may be available to them under the law.

¶36

Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.

¶37

(D.K. DESHMUKH, J.)

¶38

(V.M. KANADE, J.)

¶39

Minal Manohar Nachankar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minal Manohar Nachankar 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

Amogsiddha Lakappa Birajdar Vs Chief Administrative Officer, Z.P.,Solapur and Anr.

Al-Azhar Yakub Contractor and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

All India ONGC Ex-Employees Welfare Association Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Maharashtra Rajya Zilla Parishand Krishi Tantrik Karmachari Sanghatana, Pune Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri. Gaurishankar Gurudas Shiroor Vs Smt.Shruti W/O Gaurishankar Shiroor

Rekha Mangesh Bhalerao Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.