Disposed

Dr. Sangeeta T. Amladi v. Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Aug 2009WP/1776/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed by a Professor challenging an order reverting her from Professor to a lower post, the High Court of Bombay disposed of the petition by referring to the interim order operative until 15th October 2009, when the petitioner was scheduled to retire voluntarily.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed off in terms of the interim order with parties to act on the authenticated copy.

Dr. Sangeeta T. Amladi Vs Greater Mumbai… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1776 OF 2008

¶4

Dr Sangeeta T. Amladi ...Petitioner

¶5

v/s

¶6

Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation
and others

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr S.K. Talsania, Sr. Counsel with Mr K.S. Bapat i/b

¶9

M/s Desai and Desai and Associates for Petitioner.
Mr A.Y. Sakhare, Sr. Counsel with Ms S.M. Modle for

¶10

Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶11

Mr R.S. Ghodge i/b Mr A.S. Desai for Respondent No.
3.

¶12

CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND R.G. KETKAR JJ.

¶13

DATE : 12TH AUGUST 2009.

¶14

¶15

P.C. :-

¶16

1]By this petition, the petitioner, who is

¶17

presently working as Professor and Head of
Department of Skin and Venereal Disease in Topiwala
National Medical College, Mumbai Central, Mumbai,

¶18

has made grievance against the order reverting her

¶19

from the post of Professor to which she was promoted

¶20

on adhoc basis to the lower post. Because of the
interim order passed by this Court dated 12th June

¶21

2009, it is common ground that the petitioner

¶22

continued to work in the same post i.e. Professor on
adhoc basis, because of creation of supernumerary
post. The petitioner has give notice for voluntary

¶23

retirement to be effective from 15th October 2009.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for Corporation has

¶25

placed on record a copy of the communication dated
11th August 2009, which is taken on record and

¶26

marked �X� for identification, by which the

¶27

Corporation has accepted the notice provisionally
and permitted the petitioner to voluntarily retire

¶28

¶29

with effect from 15th October 2009. The leaned

¶30

counsel appearing for Corporation stated that in the

¶31

letter it is stated that the notice for voluntary
retirement is accepted provisionally because the

¶32

Corporation wanted to check whether there are any
departmental inquiries pending against the
petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for

¶33

petitioner states that there are no inquiries

¶34

pending against the petitioner and that the

¶35

petitioner will not withdraw her notice to voluntary
retirement till it becomes effective on 15th October

¶36

2009. The statements made by both the sides are

¶37

accepted. In our opinion, in view of the fact that

¶38

the interim order was operating because of which the
petitioner was working as Professor and is retiring

¶39

on 15th October 2009, it will be appropriate to
dispose off the petition in terms of the interim

¶40

order, especially paragraph 4 thereof. It is

¶41

accordingly so ordered. Petition is disposed off.

¶42

Parties to act on the copy of this order

¶43

duly authenticated by the Associate / Private

¶44

¶45

Secretary of this Court.

¶46

Certified copy expedited.

¶47

( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH )

¶48

( JUSTICE R.G. KETKAR )

Dr. Sangeeta T. Amladi v. Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Sangeeta T. Amladi v. Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation 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

Arvind Govind Naik Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs the Mun. Corpn. of Gr. Bombay and Ors.

Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. Vs Mun.Corpn.of Gr.Mumbai and Anr.

Suman M.Patil Vs the Bombay Mun.Corpn. and Anr.

Ramchandra Ramswarup Vs Union of India and Ors.

Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sanghatana Vs the Securiti Guards Board for Greater Bombay and Ors.