The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad held that the petitioner's grievance regarding a deemed date of promotion did not require judicial consideration as the respondents assured in affidavit that the due date would be granted. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
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.
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO. 262 OF 2010
Gajmal Rupchand Thakare, Age : 52 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Datta Colony, Plot No.64, Nandurbar, District : Nandurbar. .. Petitioner.
versus
(2)
Mr. P.B. Shirsath, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ.
DATE : 15TH DECEMBER 2010
COURT'S ORDER (Per R.M. Borde, J.) :
(3)
(4)
( R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE
bgp/wp262
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a deemed date of promotion in the cadre of Executive Engineer as of 31st January 2003.
Gajmal Rupchand Thakare
The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
The Chief Engineer, Public Works Regional Division, Nasik
The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Dhule
B.R. Gavai
R.M. Borde
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
