Partly allowed

Smt. Mangala S. Anchan v. State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC3 Feb 2009WP/319/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay rejected the petitioner's challenge regarding her suspension under the Maharashtra Nurses Act. The court held that the State Government has the power to suspend and directed it to pass appropriate orders within four weeks after examining the petitioner's reply.

What did the court decide?

Directed the State Government to examine the petitioner's reply filed on 16th January 2009 and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

Smt. Mangala S. Anchan Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

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

¶2

WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.100 OF 2009

¶3

Mangala S. Anchan Vs.

¶4

.. Petitioner

¶5

State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. D.S. Jadhav with Mr. Sachin J. Kadam for the petitioner. Mr. G.W. Mattos, Assistant Government Pleader for the State. Mr. R.R. Salvi for the respondent No.2.

¶7

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶8

DATED : 3RD FEBRUARY, 2009

¶9

P.C.

¶10

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the legality and correctness of the order of suspension dated 26^th December, 2008 passed by the State Government wherein it was stated that as departmental proceedings are contemplated against the petitioner, she was placed under suspension. The challenge is primarily in terms of section 15(4) of the Maharashtra Nurses Act, 1966 which has not

¶11

been complied with and the petitioner can be placed under suspension only on the recommendation by the Council with the prior approval of the State Government.

¶12

We are not impressed by this submission. In any case, at this stage of proceeding, the petitioner has been served with the order of suspension to which the petitioner has filed the reply and has prayed to the respondent-authority to vacate the order of suspension.

¶13

Prima facie, we are of the view that the State Government has power to place the petitioner under suspension. The control and supervision of the State Government of the Council is wide enough to exercise such powers. Under section 40 of the Maharashtra Nurses Act, the State Government can take action where the Council, its President, Vice President fail to act in accordance with law. The allegations have been made that the Council is acting in collusion with the petitioner and, therefore, is not taking appropriate steps. We are not required to comment for or otherwise on merits of this contention and that as already noticed we are not even deciding the other question raised. However, we direct the State Government to go through the reply filed by the petitioner dated 16^th January, 2009 and pass appropriate orders expeditiously and in any case within four weeks

¶14

from today. Petition stands disposed of.

¶15

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶16

DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

Smt. Mangala S. Anchan v. State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mangala S. Anchan v. State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Tukaram Appaya Shiware Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

K.W. Engineering and Signs Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Executive Director (Engineering), Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Another

Pratiba Naitthani Vs Union of India and Anr.

M/S. Rajesh Estates and Nirman Ltd. Mumbai Vs Gangaram Barkya Dalvi and 7 Others

Venkatesh Karkera Vs Mumbai Municipal Commissioner and Another

Reliance Industries Limited and Anr. Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.