Partly allowed

Vitthal Bajirao Wandekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC7 May 2012WP/3607/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a retired Zilla Parishad Agricultural Assistant, challenged the non-implementation of a claimed pay scale difference. The Court directed the Chief Executive Officer to pass a brief reasoned order on a comprehensive representation within eight weeks, while expressly abstaining from expressing an opinion on the claim's merit.[paragraph 32]

What did the court decide?

Directed Chief Executive Officer to pass a brief reasoned order on comprehensive representation within eight weeks from receipt.

Vitthal Bajirao Wandekar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

-:(1):-

¶2

WP3607-10

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

OfficeNotes,Office Court's or Judge's orders.
MemorandaofCoram,
appearance,Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.: 3607 OF 2010

¶6

Vitthal S/o Bajirao Wandekar

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtrea and others

¶9

***

¶10

Mr. S. S. Sayyad, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. K. M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for Respondent/
State Authorities.
Mr. S. T. Shelke, Advocate for Respondent Nos.
2 to 4.

¶11

***

¶12

CORAM:NARESH H. PATIL &
S. B. DESHMUKH,JJ.
DATED: 7th MAY, 2012.

¶13

PER COURT:

¶14

1.The petitioner retired as a Zilla
Parishad employee in the year 2002 as
Agricultural Assistant. The Petitioner is
getting pension but the petitioner's grievance

¶15

is that the difference in pay scale claimed by

¶16

him has not been given to him which affects

¶17

WP3607-10

¶18

-:(2):-

¶19

his pay scale also.

¶20

2.Consequent to the notice issued,
Respondent Zilla Parishad filed affidavit in
reply and explained that the Government
Resolutions dated 8th December, 1994 and 31st
January, 1996 are not applicable to the
Petitioner. The State has filed affidavit in
reply. In para 5 it is contended:-

¶21

say and submit that, as per the

¶22

letter issued by the Respondent No.3

¶23

dated 28.5.2009, the answering

¶24

respondent has taken action for
fixing the pay scale and forward
submission of the same to the

¶25

Respondent No.4."

¶26

3.In this view of the matter, in case the
petitionerfilesacomprehensive

¶27

representation addressed to the Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar,
the Chief Executive Officer shall pass a brief
reasoned order on the representation and
communicate the same within eight weeks from
the date of receipt of the representation. We

¶28

-:(3):-

¶29

WP3607-10

¶30

do not express any opinion on the merit of the

¶31

claim in the writ petition.

¶32

4. Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶33

 [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] [NARESH H.PATIL J.]
Dt.07/05/2012
ans/WP3607-10

Vitthal Bajirao Wandekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vitthal Bajirao Wandekar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Khalil Abdul Rahim Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Keshavrao Begaji Nandre and Ors. Vs Bhagwat Migajirao Wawle and Ors.

Bhanudas Nivruttirao Suraywanshi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Muktabai Sopanrao Gadekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Muktabai Sopanrao Gadekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajendra Balasaheb Thorat Vs the State of Mah and Ors.