Disposed

Sushila Ramchandra Karvande v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2010WP/1574/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Administrative Officer to conduct an enquiry into the petitioner's claim for salary difference under the MEPS Act before retirement. The Officer must frame issues, grant a hearing, and make a speaking order within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Administrative Officer to conduct an enquiry, grant hearing, and pass a speaking order on the quantum of salary difference within three months.

Sushila Ramchandra Karvande Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

1 WP No.1574/10

¶2

mpt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1574 of 2010

¶5

Sau Sushila Ramchandra Karvande ... Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents

¶6

Mr.Anilkumar Patil for the petitioner. Mr. C.R.Sonawane AGP for respondent no.1. Mr. S.S.Kulkarni for respondent no.2 Mr.J. Shekhar for respondent no.4.

¶7

CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND

¶8

N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ

¶9

DATED : 4^th October 2010

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

¶12

It is clear from the record that despite this Court issuing a direction by order dated 17^th April 2007 in Writ Petition no.2780 of 2007, the Administrative Officer – respondent no.4 has not yet

¶13

2 WP No.1574/10

¶14

made an order issuing direction to the management for payment of any difference of salary. In fact, it appears that no enquiry in that regard has even been made. It is common ground that the petitioner has retired from the service of respondent nos.2 and 3 on 9^th September 2008. The claim of the petitioner is that though she was working as Head Mistress from 1987-88, she was not paid salary as per the provisions of MEPS Act and Rules, which according to the petitioner were applicable. This position is disputed by the management. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice.

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Within a period of one week from today, petitioner will file before the respondent no. 4 a copy of her representation/notice dated 13^th October 2006 along with a chart showing how much salary she has received every month from the year 1987-88 till the date of her retirement as also giving details of the amount that she should have received every month as per the provisions of MEPS Act and Rules, every month as also indicating the difference if any between these two amounts. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to place on record before the respondent no.4 any document that she wants to rely on in favour of her claim that she has not been paid as per the provisions of MEPS Act and Rules. Before filing these documents before the respondent no.4, petitioner shall serve a copy thereof on the respondent nos.2 and 3.

¶17

3 WP No.1574/10

¶18

Respondent nos.2 and 3 shall submit their reply if so advised, within a period of four weeks from the date of receiving the copy. Respondent no.4 shall thereafter hold enquiry, grant an opportunity of being heard to the respondent nos.2 and 3 and petitioner and make a speaking order in case the respondent no.4 holds that the petitioner is entitled to receive any amount from the respondent nos.2 and 3. The respondent no.4 shall indicate the exact amount. The amount directed by the respondent no.4 to be paid by respondent nos.2 and 3 to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of the intimation of the order being given by respondent no.4 subject to their right to challenge the order of the respondent no.4.

¶19

All contentions available to both the sides are kept open. In case the order of the respondent no.4 goes against the petitioner, remedies of the petitioner is also kept open. Respondent no.4 shall make the order as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of three months of reply being filed by the management.

¶20

(D.K.DESHMUKH, J)

Sushila Ramchandra Karvande v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushila Ramchandra Karvande 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheetal Hari Kasbe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri. Maheshkumar Gulabrao Borase Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Amol Ashok Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Basavraj Maruti Madhyale Vs the Government of Maharashtra and Ors.

Satish Khandu Gaikwad Vs Subhash Vidya Mandir and Ors.

Kishore Bhaskar Savant Vs B.N.N College and Ors.