Dismissed

Budruk Vilas Sadashiv v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Nov 2009LPA/163/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Letters Patent Appeal, the High Court Bench dismissed the challenge to the Single Judge's order regarding the Appellant's retirement age. The Court found no reason to interfere, holding the interest of the Appellant was protected pending a complete hearing on the rule's applicability.

What did the court decide?

Letters Patent Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. Liberty granted to move for early hearing.

Budruk Vilas Sadashiv Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2009 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2219 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2634 OF 2007

¶5

Shri Budruk Vilas Sadashiv, Vice Principal Shriman Bhausaheb Zadbuke Mahavidyalaa

)

).. Appellant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶10

).. Respondents

¶11

Mr. S.G. Kudle for the Appellant. Mr. S.N. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State.

¶12

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : 4TH NOVEMBER 2009

¶13

P. C .

¶14

We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. The challenge in the present Appeal is to the order dated 24^th February 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge. According to the Appellant, in view of the Rules in force, the Appellant was entitled to serve till the age of 60 years and the stand of the Respondents that the Appellant ought to retire on attaining the age of 58 years was contrary to law. In the reply

¶15

¶16

affidavit which was filed in the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge, the stand was taken on behalf of the official Respondents that the Management had transferred the Appellant to the Junior College attached to Barshi College, Barshi as a Junior Lecturer with effect from 1^st July 1977 and, therefore, he would retire as per the Rules upon attaining the age of 58 years. The learned Single Judge while dismissing Civil Application No. 2219 of 2008 held that the mere applicability of the Rule was in question and required determination upon complete hearing and the interest of the Appellant was quite protected by the fact that if the Appellant succeed, he would be entitled to the entire salary and benefits. We see no reason to interfere in the impugned order. Letters Patent Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶17

Liberty to the Appellant to move the learned Single

¶18

Judge for grant of early hearing of the Writ Petition.

¶19

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶20

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

Budruk Vilas Sadashiv v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Budruk Vilas Sadashiv v. the 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayshridevi Ban and Ors. Vs Municipal Corpn. Gr. Bobay and Ors.

M/S Dastari P Ltd. Vs Jaishree Davi Ban and Ors.

National Aviation Company India Ltd. Vs Amit Kumar

Budruk Vilas Sadashiv Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Flavia Ferdinand Pereira Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Anr.

Rachna Sansad Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.