Dismissed

Ganpat Gangaram Narsikar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Mar 2012WP/932/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought implementation of a restored pension order but the matter was already under challenge and quashed by a Single Judge. The Court held that the delay in utilizing the statutory appeal remedy was excusable. The Court disposed of the writ petition by relegating the petitioner to the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by relegating the petitioner to the remedy of appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act before the School Tribunal.

Ganpat Gangaram Narsikar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 932 OF 2012 "Ganpat s/o. Gangaram Narsikar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others."

¶3

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

¶4

¶5

Mr. K.M. Nagarkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.K. Kadam, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Anandsingh Bayas for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶6

CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI &

¶7

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶8

DATE :- 20TH MARCH, 2012.

¶9

PER COURT :-

¶10

1] The petition arises out of peculiar facts.

¶11

2] The petitioner was employed as a Peon in the respondent No.5 school managed by respondent No.4. Since the petitioner's services were terminated, he preferred an appeal before the District Social Welfare Officer, Latur, which was allowed by order dated 20^th October, 2010. Since the order passed by the authority was not being implemented, the petitioner has approached this court.

¶12

3] During the course of hearing, it has come to the notice that respondent management has already challenged the order dated 20^th October, 2010 before the learned Single Judge of this court, in W.P. No. 5285 of 2011. The said petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 24^th

¶13

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO. 932 OF 2012 "Ganpat s/o. Gangaram Narsikar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others."

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

February 2012, on the ground that the Full Bench, in the matter of “Suryakant Sheshrao Panchal Vs. Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jati, Bhatkya Jamati Aadarsh Prasarak Mandal and others“ reported in 2002(3) Mh.L.J. 659, has held that appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act would be tenable before the learned School Tribunal.

¶18

4] It can thus clearly be seen that only when the matter was heard yesterday, the petitioner has come to know about the order passed by the learned Single Judge, vide which, the order, of which the implementation is sought in the present petition, has been quashed and set aside.

¶19

5] We, therefore, find that the interest of justice would be met by relegating the petitioner to the remedy by way of appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act. In the peculiar circumstance, the delay in approaching the learned School Tribunal, would be condoned by the School Tribunal. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶20

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH,J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.]

¶21

grt/-

Ganpat Gangaram Narsikar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganpat Gangaram Narsikar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santabai Tukaram Etubone Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jeevan Abhajirao Ghogre Vs the Collector, Nanded and Anr.

Nagorao Bhaurao Chavan Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Ashok Narharirao Sodgir Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Manoj Kacharu Sonwane Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Santosh Laxman Koli Vs the State of Mah and Ors.