Disposed

Sandeep Prakashrao Sabne v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Dec 2011WP/7503/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad ordered the sanction of pay-bills and payment of salary to the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak from the date of reinstatement in the Letters Patent Appeal. This interim order was subject to the final outcome of the pending Letters Patent Appeal.

What did the court decide?

Sanction of pay-bills and payment of salary as Shikshan Sevak from the date of reinstatement, subject to the outcome of the Letters Patent Appeal.

Sandeep Prakashrao Sabne Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

(1)

¶2

wp7503-11

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 7503 OF 2011

¶5

Sandeep Prakashrao Sabne PETITIONER
VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS

¶7

.....

¶8

Mr. P.S. Dighe, advocate holding for
Mr. V.R. Dhorde, advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State.
Mr. A.A. Nimbalkar, advocate holding for Mr. V.D.
Salunke, advocate for Respondent No. 3 and 4.

¶9

.....

¶10

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
 M.T. JOSHI, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 9th DECEMBER, 2011

¶12

ORAL ORDER:

¶13

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally, by consent.

¶14

2.Thelearnedcounsel,appearingfor

¶15

Respondent No.3, undertakes to submit the pay-bills

¶16

of the petitioner to the Respondent No. 2 for the

¶17

period from the date on which the petitioner was
reinstated in pursuance to the orders passed in the
Letters Patent Appeal.

¶18

3.As is evident from the document, which is

¶19

wp7503-11

¶20

(2)

¶21

annexed at page 27 of the present petition, since the
services of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak were
approved by the Respondent No. 2 - Education Officer,
the Respondent No. 2 shall sanction the pay-bills and
pay the salary to the petitioner as admissible to the
Shikshan Sevak.

¶22

4.Needless to state that the aforesaid

¶23

arrangement shall be subject to the final outcome of
the Letters Patent Appeal which is pending before
this Court. In that view of the matter, Rule is made

¶24

absolute in above terms.

¶25

 [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.]

¶26

npj/wp7503-11

Sandeep Prakashrao Sabne v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Prakashrao Sabne v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahatma Phule Sarvajanik Vachanalaya Lkarodi Sajapur Dist a.Bad Thr President Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sane Guruji Sarvajanik Vachanalaya Veetkheda Th Secretary Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Shri Sant Eknath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Eknathnagar Paithan Dist a.Bad Hr Incharge Managing D Vs Asstt Provident Fund Commissioner Sub Regional Office Cidco a.Bad and Ors.

Ahmed Khuram Daanish Md. Waseem Ahmed Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Santosh Bhikaji Satpute Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Baliram Bhoju Rathod Vs the State of Mah and Ors.