Disposed

Jatashankar Upadhaya and Ors. v. Mah. Elektrosmelt Ltd. Thr. Ex.Director, Chandrapur

Bombay HC11 Sept 2012WP/615/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a declaration of eligibility to remain in service till age 60. The petition regarding petitioner no. 1 was held abated due to death and acceptance of retirement benefits. Petitions 2 to 10 were rendered infructuous as the retirement age was increased to 60 during pendency.

What the court decided

AI extract

Jatashankar Upadhaya and Ors. Vs Mah… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1109wp615.95

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No .

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶5

W. P. NO. 615 OF 1995

¶6

Jatashankar Upadhaya & Ors. VERSUS Maharashtra Elektrosmelt Ltd. Chandrapur

¶7

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

¶8

- - - - Shri D. L. Dharmadhikari counsel for the petitioners. Shri S. C. Mehadia counsel for the respondent.

¶9

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 .

¶10

By this petition the petitioners seek a declaration that the petitioners are eligible to remain in service till they attain the age of 60 years.

¶11

The respondent has filed the submissions on 31^st July 2012 after serving a copy of the submissions on the counsel for the petitioner on 30^th July 2012. It is stated in the submissions that so far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned the petition stands abated as the petitioner no. 1 expired on 30^th October 2001 and his legal heirs having accepted the age of his retirement have taken the retiral benefits including in terms of the revised pay. It is also stated on behalf of the respondent on affidavit that the petition, so far as petitioner

¶12

nos. 2 to 10 are concerned has been rendered infructuous as

¶13

¶14

1109wp615.95

¶15

during the pendency of the petition the retirement age of the petitioners 2 to 10 has been increased to 60 years and the relief sought by the petitioners 2 to 10 is granted to them during the pendency of the petition.

¶16

Shri Dharmadhikari the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks time to take instructions in the matter.

¶17

We however, decline to grant time on the request made by the learned counsel as after the copy of the submission was served on the counsel for the petitioner on 30.07.2012, the matter was listed before this Court on 2^nd August 2012 and 3^rd September 2012 and the matter was adjourned at the request of the petitioners counsel. Today it is submitted that the where abouts of the legal representatives of petitioner no. 1 are not known to the counsel till this date.

¶18

We are inclined to dispose of the petition on the submissions made on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner no. 1 expired on 30.01.2001 and since the legal representatives of the petitioner no. 1 accepted the retiral benefits in terms of the revised pay also, the petition so far as it relates to the petitioner no.1 stands abated. As regards claim of the petitioners 2 to 10, the petition has been rendered infructuous as the grievance of the petitioners 2 to 10 has been redressed due to the subsequent development of

¶19

1109wp615.95

¶20

¶21

increasing the age of superannuation to 60 years.

¶22

Hence, in view of the submissions filed by the respondent on 31^st July 2012 the Writ Petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

SVK

Jatashankar Upadhaya and Ors. v. Mah. Elektrosmelt Ltd. Thr. Ex.Director, Chandrapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jatashankar Upadhaya and Ors. v. Mah. Elektrosmelt Ltd. Thr. Ex.Director, Chandrapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulshan Kukkutpalan Sahkari Sanstha Ltd., through Its President and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary and 5 Others

Prashant Annasaheb Nalse Vs State of Mah. Thr. Secy., Deptt. of School Educn., and Sports, Mantralaya, Mumbai

Vishwanath Gopalrao Channe Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education and 4 Oth

Dhruvakumar S/O Parasram Kohad Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Rambhau S/O Narayan Tejankar and Other Vs the State of Maha. Thr Principal Secretary, Mumbai and Other

Mohammad Jamir Sheikh Hanif and 7 Ors. Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Principal Secty., Dept. of Revenue and Forest and 5 Ors.