Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Shankar Ram Mhatre Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2010)

Home
Bombay HC
2010
Shankar Ram Mhatre Vs the State of Maharashtra and AShankar Ram Mhatre v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Disposed

Shankar Ram Mhatre v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Sept 2010WP/2141/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal writ petition, the Court held that under Rule 16 of the 1959 Rules, the initial 14-day furlough period must be reckon for sentence remission, and the appropriate authority was directed to reconsider the case afresh within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Appropriate authority directed to reconsider the petitioner's case on merits and pass an order within three weeks.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appropriate authority directed to reconsider the petitioner's case on merits and pass an order within three weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appropriate authority committed a manifest error by excluding the initial 14 days of furlough from sentence remission computation under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1959.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The Court held that while extended furlough is excluded from sentence remission computation, the proviso to Rule 16 of the 1959 Rules mandates that the initial 14-day furlough period is required to be reckoned. Since the appropriate authority excluded even the initial period, the petition was disposed of with a direction to reconsider the matter and pass an order within three weeks.

A compact analysis

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.

A

1 crwp2141-10

agk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2141 OF 2010

Shankar Ram Mhatre ..Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Another

..Respondents.

Mr.N.N. Gavankar with Mr.Arfan Sait for the petitioner. Mr.K.V. Saste, APP for the State.

CORAM : A.M. Khanwilkar, & U.D. Salvi, JJ.

DATE : 9^th September 2010.

P.C. :

The only grievance made before this Court is that the appropriate authority has committed manifest error in not reckoning the furlough period availed by the petitioner, which is the mandate of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1959. Learned APP in all fairness submits that the appropriate authority will reconsider the said aspect and take fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law.

Going by Rule 16 of the Rules of 1959, it is more than clear that the furlough period of initial 14 days is required to be reckoned for the

purpose of remission of sentence. As per the proviso to Rule 16, only

2 crwp2141-10

extended furlough period is to be excluded for such purpose of computing the remission of sentence.

In the present case, it appears that even the initial period of 14 days which was the period provided in the original furlough order has also been excluded by the authority. In the circumstances, we dispose of this petition with direction to the appropriate authority to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh on its own merits and pass order as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than three weeks from today.

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the appropriate authority committed a manifest error by excluding the initial 14 days of furlough from sentence remission computation under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1959.

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Shankar Ram Mhatre
respondent
The State of Maharashtra

Coram

AI extract

A.M. Khanwilkar
U.D. Salvi

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Bombay HC
Decided on: 9 Sept 2010 · September
Registered: 21 Jul 2010
Case no.: WP/2141/2010
CNR: HCBM010265342010
Topic: Pension and Retirement Benefits
Bench: A.m. Khanwilkar U.d. Salvi
Disposal: TRIAL BE EXPEDITED

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from A.m. Khanwilkar U.d. Salvi

Samir Balasaheb Awati Vs the State of Maharashtra
8 Sept 2010
Gulab Aabasha Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra
8 Sept 2010
Bhimrao Dhareppa Pandhare Vs the Trasnport Commissioner and Ors.
8 Sept 2010
Aasim Kamarali Khan @ Ayya Vs the State of Maharashtra
9 Sept 2010
Shridhar Krishna Panchal Vs the State of Maharashtra
9 Sept 2010
Irfana Mehmood Khan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.
9 Sept 2010

Cite this judgement

Shankar Ram Mhatre v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr., WP/2141/2010 (BOM), decided on 9 September 2010.

The Bombay High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Bench / Coram

A.M. Khanwilkar and U.D. Salvi

Parties & counsel