Allowed

Krishnath Ashok Patil v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Oct 2014CAW/2282/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ application, the Bombay High Court held that an order of removal passed by a respondent on 17th September 2014 violated an earlier ad-interim order dated 12th September 2014 preventing termination. The court set aside the removal order and directed consequential action. The issue of contempt was rejected.

What did the court decide?

The order passed by the third respondent on 17.09.2014 setting aside removal is set aside; the third respondent is directed to pass consequential orders.

Krishnath Ashok Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

caw2282

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2282 OF 2014 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.8298 OF 2014

¶5

Krishnat Ashok Patil

¶6

...Applicant

¶7

vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Mr.Samir Kumbhakoni for the applicant
Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for the State

¶11

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 G.S.KULKARNI, JJ.
 DATE : OCTOBER 1,2014

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

.Not on board. Taken on board.

¶14

1Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and
the learned AGP for the respondent. This
application was heard yesterday when time was
granted to the learned AGP to take instructions. On
12th September 2014, after hearing the learned AGP
representing the State, this Court passed an order
in the Writ Petition directing that if the
employment of the applicant/petitioner is not
terminated till that date, the same shall not be
terminated on the basis of the order impugned in the
Writ Petition. Our attention is invited to the order
dated 17th September 2014 passed by the third
respondent which shows that an order of removal of
the petitioner/applicant from the employment has
been passed.

¶15

2 caw2282

¶16

2The order dated 17th September 2014 passed by
the third respondent is completely contrary to the
order dated 12th September 2014 passed by this Court.
The said order being contrary to the adinterim
order passed by this Court cannot be allowed to
operate.

¶17

3As far as the action for contempt is concerned,
it is pointed out that due to inadvertence, the
office of Government Pleader did not communicate,
the adinterim order to the concerned Department.
Therefore, an action for contempt cannot be
initiated.

¶18

4Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶19

(I)The order dated 17th September 2014 passed
by the third respondent (ExhibitB to this
petition) is hereby set aside;

¶20

(II)Thethirdrespondentshallpass
consequential orders;

¶21

(III)No other relief can be granted in this
application;

¶22

(IV)Application is disposed of on above terms.

Krishnath Ashok Patil v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnath Ashok Patil v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and 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

Shri. Anil Appasaheb Desai Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Shamrao Jinappa Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Anil Vinayakrao Chavan and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Balgonda Jangonda Patil Vs Union of India, Thorugh Dept of Petroleum, Navi Delhi and Ors.

Federation of Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers Association Vs State of Maharahstra and Anr.

Tower Vision India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Anr.