Dismissed

Madhukar S/O Narayan Gadre and 8 Others v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary and Another

Bombay HC12 Sept 2012WP/658/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged a decision to deny pension benefits taken by the Chief Minister alone in October 2010. During pendency, the government took a new decision via the Cabinet on 13.6.2012. The court held that amendment was not permitted as it changed the petition's nature, and since the old decision no longer survived, the writ petition was disposed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs.

Madhukar S/O Narayan Gadre and 8 Others Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp658-11.order

¶2

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

¶3

Writ Petition No. 658 of 2011

¶4

Madhukar Narayan Gadre and Ors.

¶5

-vs-

¶6

State of Mah. And another.

¶7

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶8

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶9

Mr. N.S. Badhe, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Khubalkar, learned AGP for the respondent no.1 Mr. H.N. Verma, learned counsel for Respondent no.2.

¶10

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, & SUNIL P. DESHMUKH , JJ.

¶11

DATE : 12th September, 2012.

¶12

By this petition, the petitioners seek a declaration that the decision taken by the Hon’ble Chief Minister alone to deny the pensionary benefits to the employees of MHADA in October, 2010 and informed to the respondent no.2 MHADA is absolutely illegal, unwarranted and unjustifiable as the said decision was not taken by the Cabinet.

¶13

It is informed to this court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that since it was the grievance of the petitioners that the decision dated 14.10.2010 was taken by the Hon’ble Chief Minister alone and the Cabinet had not taken the decision, during the pendency of the petition, the Cabinet has now taken a decision on 13.6.2012 and decided that the pension scheme cannot be made applicable to the employees of MHADA.

¶14

The petitioners have filed an amendment application bearing CAW No.3271/2012 seeking permission to allow the amendment so as to challenge the decision taken by the Cabinet on 13.6.2012.

¶15

wp658-11.order

¶16

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that by the proposed amendment the petitioners desire to challenge a fresh decision taken by the government (Cabinet) on 13.6.2012. The cause of action for filing the writ petition was the decision taken by the Hon’ble Chief Minister alone in October, 2010. The decision was mainly challenged on the ground that the decision ought to have been taken by the Cabinet and not by the Hon’ble Chief Minister alone. Since the government has now taken a fresh decision on 13.6.2012, a fresh cause of action would arise and the petitioners can as well challenge the decision of the Cabinet dated 13.6.2012 by filing a fresh petition. The proposed amendment is extensive in nature and also somewhat changes the nature of the petition. Hence, the prayer made in the amendment application cannot be granted.

¶17

Since the State Govt. has taken a fresh decision on 13.6.2012 and the decision taken by the Hon’ble Chief Minister alone in October, 2010 no more survives, the cause for filing this writ petition would also not survive.

¶18

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶19

JUDGE JUDGE

¶20

Hirekhan

Madhukar S/O Narayan Gadre and 8 Others v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhukar S/O Narayan Gadre and 8 Others v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary and Another

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

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

Western Coalfields Ltd., Thru. Chief Gen. Manager Vs State of Mah. Thru. Revenue and Forest Dept. and 2 Ors.

Western Coalfields Ltd.Chandrapur Vs State of Mah.Thr.Secr.Mumbai and Another

Dr. Kum. Chhaya Parashram Fule Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Health Department and 5 Others

Ku. Lalita D/O Gangadhar Dabhane Vs Municipal Council Achalpur Thr Its Chief Officer Achalpur

Indira Shikshan Sanstha Thr. Its Secty. Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and 4 Ors.