The single judge modified interim relief by restricting it to back wages after the respondent reinstated the petitioner, and disposed of the civil application accordingly.
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.
11-caw-1698-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1698 OF 2012 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.6275 OF 2009
Shri Prakash V. Hardikar .. Applicant. V/s.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. .. Respondent.
Mr. P. M. Palshikar i/b. Ms. Geeta R. Malankar, for the Applicant. Mr. C. M. Lokesh i/b. Mr. G. S. Hegde & Associates, for the Respondent.
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2012.
P.C:-
Considering the letter placed on record along with the Affidavit and application filed by the Respondent, wherein it has been recorded that the Respondent has already reinstated the Petitioner pursuant to the impugned order, the order so granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) while admitting the Petition on 29th November, 2010 is, therefore, modified and it will be restricted to the issue of back wages only as the Petitioner is already reinstated.
2 Civil Application is disposed off accordingly.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.)
1 of 1
S.R.JOSHI
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the interim relief of reinstatement granted earlier should be modified since the respondent has reinstated the petitioner?
Whether the civil application should be restricted to the issue of back wages only after reinstatement?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shri Prakash V. Hardikar
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn.
Anoop V. Mohta
S.R. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
