Disposed

Sanjivkumar Rajdharrao More v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Jul 2012WP/4377/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the State Government to consider representations by the petitioner seeking benefit under a 1995 Government Resolution. The court held that in light of active government consideration and a Central Government policy decision, the writ petition should be disposed of by issuing this direction without observing on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the representations made by the petitioner on 1.4.2010 and 29.10.2010 regarding the benefit/concession claim.

Sanjivkumar Rajdharrao More Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

W.P.No.4377 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4377 OF 2011

¶5

Sanjivkumar Rajdharrao More .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and anr. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr V.J.Dixit, Senior Counsel with Mr Anandsing Bayas, Advocate for petitioner

¶8

Mr K.S.Patil, A.G.P. for respondents

¶9

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & SUNIL P.DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 26^th July 2012

¶11

PER COURT

¶12

Heard Senior Advocate Shri Dixit with Advocate Shri Bayas for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.

¶13

Caste certificate of petitioner was invalidated by Scrutiny Committee and that invalidation has been confirmed by order dated 18.2.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.2447 of 2009. S.L.P. (Civil) 16806/2010 against the same has been dismissed on 8.7.2010. However, at that time, Honourable Apex Court has observed :

¶14

W.P.No.4377 of 2011

¶15

¶16

“ However, we make it clear that if the Government, on consideration of the issue with reference to similarly placed employees in general, grants any relief or concession, the petitioner will be entitled to claim such benefit.”

¶17

Learned Senior Advocate has invited our attention to the Government Resolution dated 5.3.2009 to urge that question of considering benefit conferred by Government Resolution dated 15.6.1995 upon petitioner and other similarly placed employees is under active consideration of State Government and a Committee is also formed for taking decision upon it. He, therefore, seeks consideration of representations moved by petitioner on 1.4.2010 and 29.10.2010.

¶18

Learned Assistant Government Pleader is opposing the petition. He submits that as yet the group or Committee constituted on 5.3.2009 has not taken any positive decision and hence petition, as filed could be rejected.

¶19

It is not in dispute that petitioner had joined service prior to 15.6.1995 i.e. on 1.4.1995. He could have claimed benefit of Government Resolution dated 15.6.1995, however, the Honourable Apex Court has extended him the concession and has permitted him

¶20

W.P.No.4377 of 2011

¶21

¶22

to seek protection from government, in case a general policy in that respect is evolved. The Government Resolution dated 5.3.2009 shows that government is actively considering the question of grant of protection to employees like present petitioner. Shri Dixit has pointed out that Central Government has, on 10.8.2010, taken a a policy decision to extend protection to its employees.

¶23

In this situation, without observing anything on merits, we direct respondents to consider representations made by petitioner as stated above. With these directions we dispose of the petition. No costs.

¶24

(SUNIL P.DESHMUKH, J.) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶25

(vvr/4377.11wp)

Sanjivkumar Rajdharrao More v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjivkumar Rajdharrao More v. the State of Mah and Anr.

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

Sidharth Ramrao Pawar Vs Chanchalchandra Marotrao Telange and Ors.

Sidharth Ramrao Pawar Vs Indumati Mahadyappa Mathadevaru and Ors.

Sakhram Kerba Bangar and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Keshav Panditrao Ghogare and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Maruti Laxmanrao Landge Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Fattu Mohammad Sayyed and and Vs M I D C Latur and Anr.