In this writ petition concerning pension and retirement benefits, the High Court of Bombay declined to interfere in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction considering the petitioner was over 50 years old at the time of retirement.
Writ petition rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
hvn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6849 OF 2009
Eknath Parshu Patil
... Petitioner
Versus
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. And Anr.
... Respondents
Mr. P. M. Mokashi for Petitioner.
Mr. Pradeep M. Patil for R. Nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : DECEMBER 16, 2009
P.C.
Considering that at the time of retirement the petitioner was aged over 50 years, we are not inclined to interfere in exercise of our extra ordinary jurisdiction.
Hence. Petition rejected.
(J.H. BHATIA, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging retirement-related grievance deserves interference given petitioner's age over 50 years.
Whether extra ordinary jurisdiction warrants intervention in the petitioner's retirement matter.
Eknath Parshu Patil
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.
F.I. Rebello
J.H. Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
