Vinayak S/O Laxman Uike Vs Additional Commissioner, Tribal Dev. Nagpur and 2 Ors.

¶1

W.P.No.414/12

¶2

1

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 414 of 2012

¶5

VINAYAK LAXMAN UIKE VERSUS

¶6

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT, NAGPUR AND 2 OTHERS

¶7

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶9

¶10

Mr. M. M. Sudame, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. N. W. Sambre, Govt. Pleader for respondent nos.1 to 3

¶11

CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR AND P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 14^th FEBRUARY, 2012.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶13

petitioner.

¶14

By this petition, the petitioner has prayed that he may be considered for promotion with effect from 31.08.2000 as according to him, at that time, he was wrongly denied the benefit of promotion.

¶15

It is required to be noted that the petitioner has never challenged his non-promotion by filing any proceeding since 11 years. Such prayer, therefore, cannot be granted in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner for promotion was not considered on subsequent date i.e. in 2011.

¶16

Since, most of the averments in the petition are regarding his deemed date of promotion from 2000, which prayer cannot be granted, the writ petition is rejected with a liberty to the petitioner to file fresh petition, if he has any grievance about his future promotion or his non-promotion since 2011

¶17

W.P.No.414/12

¶18

2

¶19

and if according to him, he was eligible for promotion as per the rules.

¶20

Subject to what is stated above, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

Diwale

Vinayak S/O Laxman Uike v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Dev. Nagpur and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinayak S/O Laxman Uike v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Dev. Nagpur and 2 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

Dr. Kailash S/O Devideen Japsare Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Goodearth Agrochem Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Its Director Rahul Pramod Budhraja Vs Container Corporation of India Ltd. Thr. Its Chief General Manager and Anr.

M/S Anand Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Its M.D. Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and 3 Ors.

Anand S/O Prakashchandra Agrawal Vs Gopal S/O Bhagirath Rathi and 5 Ors.

Smt. Mayadevi W/O Prakashchandra Agrawal Thr. P.O.A. Anand S/O Prakashchandra Agrawal Vs Gopal S/O Bhagirath Rathi (Karta of Huf) and Oths

Annaji Nilkanthrao Malokar Vs Municipal Commissioner,N.M.C., and 3 Others