Dismissed

Anand Ambadasro Jawalekar v. the State of Maharahstra and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Feb 2008WP/3593/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Petition challenging a Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal order, the Court observed the petitioner had retired from service. As positions were vacated, the Court found no ground to interfere, dismissing the petition but reserving rights regarding retirement benefits for a representation to the State Government.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed off without interference in M.A.T. order; petitioner may make representation to the State Government regarding retirement benefits.

Anand Ambadasro Jawalekar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3593 OF 2002 Anand A. Jawalekar ...Petitioner v/s The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents

¶3

Mr	R.S.	Apte	with Mr	N.R.	Bubna	for P	etitioner.
Mr	R.M.		Patne, AGP	for	Re	spondent	No.1.
Mr	Prabhu	i/b	Mr N.V. Ba	ndiwadekar	for	Respondent	No.4.
CORAM	:	D.K.	DESHMUKH	AND	V.M.	KANADE	JJ.
DATE			: 25T	H	FEBRU	ARY	2008.

-2-

P.C.

By this petition, the petitioner challenges

¶8

the order passed by the Maharashtra Adm	inistrative
Tribunal dated 4th April 2001. We have heard	the
learned counsel appearing for petitioner. We have	also
perused the record. We find that the order passed	by
the M.A.T. is a detailed and well considered order.	It
is an admitted position before us that today,	the
petitioner, who was holding the post of Chief	Engineer,
has retired from service. The learned counsel	appearing
for respondent No.4 states that the respondent Nos	.3 to
5 have also retired from service. In view of	this
position, in our opinion, there is no reason	to
interfere with the order passed by the M.A.T. wh	ich is
challenged in the petition. Petition is disposed	off.
However, in case it makes any difference to the	retiral
benefits to which the petitioner is entitled,	the
petitioner shall make representation to the	State
Government. If such a representation is made, the	State

¶9

Government shall decide it on its own merits. Rule is

¶10

discharged with no order as to costs.

¶11

. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly

¶12

authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of

¶13

-3-

¶14

the Court.

¶15

Certified copy expedited.

¶16

( D.K. DESHMUKH J.)

¶17

( V.M. KANADE J.)

Anand Ambadasro Jawalekar v. the State of Maharahstra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Ambadasro Jawalekar v. the State of Maharahstra 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

Shri Chandrabhavi Gangaramji Thote Vs Principal District and Sessions Judge, Yavatmal

Hotel Amardeep Vs Shanta Ramchandra Karnale and Anr.

Union of India Vs 1.MRS.V.V. Sujatha and Ors.

Maharashtra Rajya Van Shramik Mahasangh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt.Vanita a. Kripalani Vs 1.MR.ANIL P. Kripalani

Smt.Vanita a. Kripalani Vs 1.MR.ANIL P. Kripalani