Disposed

Pralhad Balaji Khade and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC18 Nov 2014WP/1125/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition concerning regularization of service was disposed of. Court ruled that one petitioner is ineligible while the other is eligible based on 240 days of work, directing the authority to forward recommendations to the State within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.3 to forward regularization recommendation to State within eight weeks.

Pralhad Balaji Khade and Another Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

W.P.No.1125/14

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1125 OF 2014

¶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.Shivaji T.Shelke, advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.S.T.Tope, Govt. Pleader for the State.

¶10

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA & V.K.JADHAV, JJ. Date : 18.11.2014.

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

Heard.

¶13

Mr.Shelke, learned counsel submits that in the affidavit-inreply filed by the Respondent, it is accepted that Respondent No.3 has already recommended the proposal for regularisation of petitioner No.2. However, in case of petitioner No.1 it is averred that the petitioner is ineligible for regularisation. According to the learned counsel, under Right to Information Act, the information is supplied which substantiates the contention that the petitioner No.1 has worked for more than 240 days during the period 1994-95 till 2002. The petitioner No.1 is also eligible for regularisation.

¶14

Mr.Tope, learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that the name of petitioner No.2 is included by the State in

¶15

¶16

W.P.No.1125/14

¶17

the list of regularised employees. As far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, subsequently review has been made and the case of petitioner No.1 is also forwarded to the Respondent No.3 with recommendation that the petitioner No.1 is also eligible for regularisation. The Respondent No.3 will have to forward the same to the State.

¶18

In view of the statement made by the learned Govt. Pleader, the grievance of the petitioner No.2 stands redressed.

¶19

As far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, the case of petitioner No.1 is already recommended for regularisation to Respondent No.3. From the information placed before this Court, obtained under Right to Information Act, it is manifest that the petitioner No.1 complies necessary eligibility criteria of working for 240 days from 1994-95 till 2004. As such the Respondent No.3 shall forward the said recommendation to the State expeditiously, preferably within eight (8) weeks and the State shall take decision on the same expeditiously, preferably within eight (8) weeks of the receipt of the proposal from Respondent No.3.

¶20

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶21

(V.K.JADHAV,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶22

Dt..18.11.2014. asp/office/wp1125.14

¶23

¶24

W.P.No.1125/14

Pralhad Balaji Khade and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pralhad Balaji Khade and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Dhanraj Balaprasad Chitlangi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Atmaram Dhondiram Jadhav Vs Managing Director, Mah. State Power Generation Co. Ltd.

Rajkumar Kishanrao Renguntwar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Vasant Marutirao Chavan Vs Jan Jagruti Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Secretary and Ors.

Nutan Bahuuddeshiya Mandal, Surwade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Suresh Dala Patil Vs the Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon and Another