Allowed

Subhash Adhar Mahajan v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Dec 2010WP/5970/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed the petition to direct respondents to consider the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds based on the scheme prevailing on the date of application, distinguishing against a later policy change.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioner No. 2 for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the scheme existing on 28-6-2006 and issue an appointment order.

Subhash Adhar Mahajan Vs the State of Mah and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

wp5970.10

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5970 OF 2010

¶5

1 Subhash s/o Adhar Mahajan age major, occ. retired from sevice r/o Dattawadi, Nr. Datta Typing class Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.

¶6

2 Tushar s/o Subhash Mahajan age 26 years, occ. nil r/o Dattawadi, Nr. Datta Typing Class Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. .. PETITIONERS

¶7

VERSUS 1 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary

¶8

2 The Maharashtra State Board Transport Corporation Through its Managing Director Central Office Maharashtra Wahatuk Bhavan, Dr. Anantrao Nair Road, Mumbai.

¶9

3 The Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon. .. RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr. S.P. Tiwari, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for the State. Mr. M.K. Goyanka, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3. =====

wp5970.10

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI &

R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 8th DECEMBER, 2010

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER B.R.GAVAI, J.)

¶16

1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

¶17

2 It is not in dispute that the facts in the present case are identical with

¶18

the facts in Writ Petition no. 1070/2010 ( Vasant nathu Shitole & others vs. The

¶19

State of Maharashtra & others ).

¶20

3 The order issued to the petitioner is dt. 26-6-2006 whereas the change

¶21

in policy as has been held by order in aforesaid case is w.e.f. 28-7-2006. As

¶22

such, the petitioner cannot be governed by the change in policy.

¶23

4 Rule is therefore made absolute with no order as to costs, in the

¶24

following terms.

¶25

“By issuing writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents no. 2 and 3 may kindly be directed to consider the case of petitioner no. 2 for appointment on compassionate ground, as per the scheme existing on the date of submission of application by the petitioners i.e.

¶26

wp5970.10

¶27

¶28

28-6-2006 and they may be further directed to issue appointment order in favour of petitioner no. 2, for a suitable post as per the qualification.”

¶29

( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE

¶30

( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE

¶31

dyb

Subhash Adhar Mahajan v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Adhar Mahajan 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

Uddhav Bapurao Baswade Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Nemichand Hanumantrao Kanote Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Rajendra Madhav Bhosale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ku Aditi Abhay Kolte through Her Father Abhay P Kolte Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Tushar Janardan Bhamare Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Seema Bhanudas Bhosale and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.