Prakash Ishwar Johari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Ajaykumar G. Magare, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri S.P. Tiwari, Advocate, for Respondent No. 4.

¶10

This petition has been filed by the petitioner for direction to Respondent No. 3 to grant a higher pay-scale to the petitioner from the academic year 2008-09. The claim is made on the basis of Government Resolution dated 1.10.1998.

¶11

In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, it is stated that, as a matter of fact, proposal is not submitted by Respondent No.4 and, therefore, Respondent No.3 could not consider the same,

¶12

Shri Tiwari, the learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No. 4

¶13

makes a categorical statement that the proposal for grant of higher pay scale to the petitioner would be submitted within two weeks from today. The said statement is accepted and taken on record.

¶14

2

¶15

The Petition, therefore, stands disposed of, with a direction to Respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the proposal which shall be submitted by Respondent No. 4, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of such proposal.

¶16

(Sunil P. Deshmukh, J.)

¶17

(B.R. Gavai, J.)

¶18

pnd/wp-409.12

Prakash Ishwar Johari v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Ishwar Johari 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

Pratap Deva Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S Mahaveer Traders Nanded Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prabha Farms Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Najir Umardaraj Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajput Sanjay Narayansingh Vs Mahda Aurangabad Throgh Chief Officer

Sanjot Oil Depot Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.