Allowed

Renuka Magasvarigya Education Society Aurangabad v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Apr 2010WP/3132/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition was disposed of finally at the admission stage. The court held that a similar controversy was covered by a Division Bench judgment and directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's proposal afresh within thirty days.

What did the court decide?

This petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to decide the petitioner's proposal afresh in accordance with law by 31/5/2010 and communicate the decision.

Renuka Magasvarigya Education Society… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3132 OF 2010

¶4

Shri Renuka Magasvargiya Education	}
Society, Lalwadi, through its Secretary	}
Mohan S/o Lalu Chavan	}
Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. : Secretary,	}
R/o : New Shantiniketan Colony.	}	....PETITIONER

¶5

	*V E R S U S*
1.	The State of Maharashtra	}
	Through its Secretary	}
	School Education & Sport Departme	nt
	Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.	}
2.	The Director of Education (Seconda	ry)
	State of Maharashtra,	}
	Pune – 1.	}
3.	The Dy.Director of Education	}
	Division Aurangabad.	}
4.	The Education Officer (Secondary)	}
	Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.	}	.... RESPONDENTS

¶6

Mrs. A.S.Rasal, Advocate for petitioner.

¶7

Mr. K.G.Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State.

¶8

CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ.

¶9

DATE OF JUDGMENT : 23/04/2010

¶10

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER – P.V.HARDAS, J.)

¶12

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

¶13

the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶14

We have heard Mrs. A.S.Rasal, Advocate for petitioner and Mr. K.G.Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State.

¶15

The learned counsels for the parties agree that the controversy raised in the present petition is squarely covered by the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 355 of 2010 - Asha Sevabhavi Sanstha V/s The State of Maharashtra and 4 others and other companion petitions dated 8/4/2010 . Pursuant to the said Judgment, learned Assistant Govt. Pleader on behalf of respondent – State states that the respondents would decide the proposal submitted by the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law by 31/5/2010.

¶16

We accordingly allow this petition and direct the respondents to decide the proposal of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law, by 31/5/2010 and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner.

¶17

Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no

order as to costs.

[ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ]

¶22

JUDGE JUDGE

¶23

knp/WP 3132.10 ( J )

Renuka Magasvarigya Education Society Aurangabad v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renuka Magasvarigya Education Society Aurangabad v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pandharinath Namdeorao Shitole Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sillod Shikshan Sanstha through President Janardhan Laxman Mhaske and Anr. Vs Snehalata Shriivas Dashrathe and Ors.

Sillod Shikshan Sanstha through President Janardhan Laxman Mhaske and Anr. Vs Snehalata Shriivas Dashrathe and Ors.

Dattatraya Dnyaneshwar Zende Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Renuka Magasvargiya Education So Lalwadi Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dayanand Maharaj Bahu Uddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha Bhokardan Vs the State of Mah and Ors.