Allowed

Manish Kumar and Anr. v. Union of India and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC27 Feb 2012WP/1981/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition, explaining that representations made by petitioners before their training periods expired are treated as made within time. Relying on Devendra Kori precedent, the Court granted relief allowing admission to specified batches.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed with no order as to costs; petitioners declared eligible for admission to Fitter and Carpenter batches.

Manish Kumar and Anr. Vs Union of India and 2… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 198111

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

vgm

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1981 OF 2011

¶6

Manish Kumar Deviprasad Singh &

¶7

Aarman Ali Abdul Maq Shaikh ...Petitioners

¶8

V/s.

¶9

Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

¶10

Mr. Rahul Walia for the Petitioners

¶11

Mr. Chetan Agrawal for Respondent No. 3

¶12

CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND N.M. JAMDAR, JJ. DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 2012

¶13

P.C .:-

¶14

Heard the counsel for the parties.

¶15

Rule. Mr. Chetan Agrawal waives service for respondent

¶16

No. 3. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent.

¶17

As short question is involved, the petition is taken up for

¶18

final disposal forthwith by consent.

¶19

2 198111

¶20

The controversy raised in this petition is fully covered by the decision of this Court in Devendra S. Kori v. The Regional Director

¶21

& Anr. in Writ Petition No. 1691 of 2007, decided on 8^th September, 2008. The counsel for respondent No. 3 fairly accepts this position.

¶22

In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in granting similar relief to these petitioners, as has been granted to another employee referred to in the aforesaid decision. The limited question is: Whether the representations made by the petitioners through proper channel can be treated as made within time? In the abovesaid case, the Court noted that the representation was made through proper channel before expiry of the training period. In this case, the petitioners made representations before the expiry of their training period, i.e., in the case of petitioner No. 1, before 24^th October, 1999 and in the case of petitioner No. 2, before 28^th October, 2000, and, therefore, the petitioners’ case is fully covered by the dictum in Devendra Kori ’s case.

¶23

Accordingly, this petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), with no order as to costs. It is, however, clarified that the petitioners would become eligible to be admitted in the batches of Fitter

¶24

3 198111

¶25

and Carpenter, respectively, to be conducted by the Department

¶26

hereinafter.

¶27

N.M. JAMDAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

Manish Kumar and Anr. v. Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar and Anr. v. Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Proposed Vaibhav Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

M/S. Harekrishna Builders, through Ashit Balwant Doshi Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Ravikant Narayan Acharekar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Welfare and Justice Dept and Ors.

Ravindra Yadav Chaudhari Vs the Principal, Ashtang Ayurved Mahavidyalaya and Ors.

Archana Pawar Vs Sanjay Mayekar

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Hira Dharma Bhagat and Anr.