Disposed

Vijaykumar Ramrao Dhoke v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Oct 2012WP/3210/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Visually impaired petitioner challenged an order excluding blind persons from the Supervisor post. The Court directed respondents to implement a Commissioner for Persons with Disability order granting the petitioner seniority and time-bound promotion benefits within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to implement order dated 3 December 2011 of Commissioner for Persons with Disability and redress petitioner's grievance within four weeks.

Vijaykumar Ramrao Dhoke Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

321007

¶2

Vgm.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3210 OF 2007

¶6

Vijaykumar Ramrao Dhoke ...Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Sariputta Sarnath i/by Mr. Mihir Desai for the Petitioner

¶10

Mr. A.B. Vagyani, A.G.P., for Respondent No. 1

¶11

Mr. Abhijeet A. Joshi i/by Mr. S.R. Ganbavale for Respondent No. 3

¶12

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J., & N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE: OCTOBER 05, 2012

¶13

P.C.:-

¶14

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, visually impaired teacher in respondent No. 3- school being run by the Pune Municipal Corporation, has challenged the communication dated 15 December, 2005 (Exhibit 'F') from the Government of Maharashtra, in the Social Justice, Cultural Works and Special Assistance Department, by which the petitioner was informed that the post of Supervisor is reserved for Partially Disabled

Page 1 of 3

321007

Vgm.

(Partially Sighted) Category, in that it was not proper to appoint completely blind person on the same post. The petitioner also challenges Government Resolution dated 23 August, 2005 (Exhibit 'H').

¶19

The petition was admitted on 15 June, 2007. In the said order, this Court also made an observation as under:-

¶20

“Petitioner in the instant case challenges the Government Resolution by which persons who are blind are not eligible for being appointed to the post of Supervisor in Primary School. Learned Counsel points out to us the Government Resolution under the M.E.P.S. Act and the Rules. We find from that, blind persons are eligible for consideration for the appointment...”

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, after admission of the petition, the Commissioner for Persons with Disability, Government of Maharashtra, has passed order dated 3 December, 2011 directing the respondents to take action for including the petitioner's name in the Service Seniority List of General Teachers from the date of his appointment and within 30 days thereafter, the benefits of timebound promotion, regular promotion and the monetary and service benefits accruing therefrom should be made applicable to the petitioner.

¶22

The copy of the said order and English translation thereof are placed on record, and marked 'X' and 'Y' for identification.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are, accordingly, bound to implement the aforesaid order dated 3 December, 2011 of the Commissioner for Persons with

Page 2 of 3

321007

Vgm.

Disability, and the petitioner hopes that the respondent-Authorities will implement the said order. Hence, the petitioner would request the respondents – particularly respondent No. 3 – to grant the petitioner benefits of the said order dated 3 December, 2011.

¶28

We, accordingly, dispose of this petition, with a direction to the respondents to implement the aforesaid order dated 3 December, 2011 of the Commissioner for Persons with Disability, Government of Maharashtra, and redress the petitioner's grievance, in the light of the observation made by the Court at the time of admission of the petition on 15 June, 2007 that blind persons are eligible for consideration for appointment to the post in question.

¶29

We are informed that the petitioner is going to attain the age of superannuation within about an year's time. The respondents shall, therefore, carry out the above direction within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶30

Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.

¶31

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶32

N.M. JAMDAR, J.

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Vijaykumar Ramrao Dhoke v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijaykumar Ramrao Dhoke v. 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

Anil G. Gidwani Vs Chief Justice Mumbai High Court

Nirajan Hiranandani Vs Kamlakar Motiram Satve and Ors.

Krishnakumar Vallabhdas Kapadia and 2 Ors.., Vs Dinesh Vallabhadas Kapadia and 2 Ors.

Ashok Khetshi Hariya Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mpower Realty Llp.. and 2 Ors. Vs Sarojkumar Nathmal Agarwar, and 12 Ors.

Mr. Sarjerao Janardhan Hande and Ors. Vs Maharashtra State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Ltd.