Disposed

Jay Hind Shaikshnik Sanstha Dhule v. State of Maha and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Sept 2014LPA/217/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench disposed of a Letters Patent Appeal challenging an interim stay order. The court directed the Single Judge to decide the pending writ petition expeditiously within six months, noting the interim order remains in force.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition to be disposed of expeditiously within six months; interim order remains operative; no costs.

Jay Hind Shaikshnik Sanstha Dhule Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

lpa21703.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.217 OF 2003 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1425 OF 2002

¶5

1 Jay Hind Shaikshnik Sanstha, Dhule, District Dhule, through its Chairman/Secretary. 2 The Principal, Jay Hind Education Society's Jay Hind High School and Junior College, Deopur, Dhule. Appellants Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through Deputy Director of Education, Nasik Division, Nasik. 2 Smt.Durga d/o Dattatraya Bhandari, (Joshi), age: 36 years, Occ: service, R/o Jay Hind Colony, Plot No.72, C/o Shri Kamlakar Joshi, Deopur, Dhule. 3 Shri N.Z.Patil, age: 50 years, Occ: service, R/o Pramodnagar, Sector No.2, Plot No.21-A, Nakane Road, Deopur, Dhule, District Dhule. 4 Digambar s/o Namdeo Suryawanshi, age: 36 years, Occ: Nil, R/o Police Head Quarter, Block No.1, Room No.13, Dhule. Respondents Mr.S.P.Shah, advocate holding for Mr.Mukul Kullkarni, advocate for the appellants.

¶6

Mr.N.B.Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.S.R.Barlinge, advocate for Respondents No.2 to 4.

¶7

lpa21703.odt

¶8

{2}

¶9

CORAM : R.M.BORDE &

¶10

V.K.JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 05^{thSeptember, 2014}

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.):

¶12

1 The appellant-employer is raising challenge to the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge on 10.02.2003 in Writ Petition No.1425/2002.

¶13

2 The learned Single Judge, while granting 'Rule' in the writ petition, directed to continue the Respondent-employee in employment temporarily and subject to the decision of the writ petition.

¶14

3 While entertaining Letters Patent Appeal, on 05.01.2004, the Division Bench of this Court, granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (B) thereby staying operation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, granting relief to the Respondent-employee.

¶15

4 It is to be noted that the interim order passed by the Division Bench in the instant Letters Patent Appeal is operative from 05.01.2004.

¶16

5 In this view of the matter, without entering into merits of the controversy involved in the appeal, this appeal can be disposed of by requesting the learned Single Judge, before whom Writ Petition No.1425 of 2002 is pending, to take up said writ petition for final hearing and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from today.

¶17

{3}

¶18

lpa21703.odt

¶19

During pendency and final disposal of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, interim order passed by Division Bench of this Court, in the instant Letters Patent Appeal on 05.01.2004, shall remain operative.

¶20

6 Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending Civil Application does not survive and stand disposed of.

¶21

V.K.JADHAV JUDGE

¶22

R.M.BORDE JUDGE

¶23

adb/lpa21703

Jay Hind Shaikshnik Sanstha Dhule v. State of Maha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Hind Shaikshnik Sanstha Dhule v. State of Maha 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

Yeshwant Lalaji Gadge Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Milind Tukaram Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yeshwant Lalaji Gadge Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Hanifabi Tajkhan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhaurao Nathuji Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ambadas Bhaurao Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others