Rajdhar Shamrao Pawar v. the State of Mah and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
In this writ petition concerning service benefits, the petitioner sought directions for inclusion in the supernumerary mustering assistants list. The High Court issued directions to the concerned Authority to decide the claim based on record and policy within six months, noting the issue was already pending with the Authority.
What did the court decide?
Direction to the concerned Authority to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's claim within six months.
What the court decided
wp5725.10
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5725 OF 2010
Rajdhar s/o Shamrao Pawar,
Age-45 years, Occu: Service,
R/o-Aurangabad.
...PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
(Through Secretary,
E.G.S. Planning Dept.),
2) The Secretary (E.G.S.)
Planning Department,
Secretariat, Mumbai-32,
3) The Divisional Commissioner, (E.G.S.) Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, 4) The Collector, Aurangabad, 5) The Executive Engineer (Minor Irrigation) (E.G.S.), Division No.2, Padampura, Aurangabad....RESPONDENTS.
...
Shri.V.V. Jahagirdar Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri.V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.
1 to 5.
wp5725.10
2
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be included in the list of supernumerary mustering assistants with consequential benefits.
Whether the claim regarding absorption of mustering assistants from the Employment Guarantee Scheme should be decided by the court or the appropriate Authority.
Whether directions can be issued to the appropriate Authority to decide the petitioner's claim within a specific timeframe.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Rajdhar s/o Shamrao Pawar
- respondent
The State of Maharashtra
- respondent
The Secretary (E.G.S.) Planning Department
- respondent
The Divisional Commissioner, (E.G.S.) Aurangabad Division
- respondent
The Collector, Aurangabad
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court