Disposed

Akhtar Khan Usman Khan Pathan v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC24 Nov 2014WP/1280/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the illegal deduction of House Rent Allowance. The court noted that the Respondents had agreed to refund the amount through a meeting held between them. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of as no adjudication remained on the HRA issue, with directions to approach the Respondents regarding the incidental income tax deduction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition disposed of; petitioner directed to approach respondents regarding refund of income tax deducted on HRA.

Akhtar Khan Usman Khan Pathan Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

W.P.No.1280/14

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1280 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.Milind Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.V.Deshmukh, Asstt. Govt.Pleader for the State.

¶10

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA & V.K.JADHAV, JJ. Date : 24.11.2014.

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

Heard.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the act of deduction of House Rent Allowance payable to the petitioner is illegal. Illegally the said amount is collected from the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled for refund of the same.

¶14

Mr.Bagul, learned counsel fairly concedes that in the meeting held by the Respondents, it was agreed to refund the amount of HRA collected from the petitioner and inquiry is directed to be initiated against the person who had illegally given the House Rent Allowance to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, in view of the decision taken by the Respondents, the House Rent Allowance deducted from the petitioner would be

¶15

¶16

W.P.No.1280/14

¶17

paid back to the petitioner.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Respondents have also deducted Rs.10,138/- (Rupees ten thousand one hundred thirty eight) towards the income tax on the said House Rent Allowance.

¶19

In view of the statement made by the Respondents that the House Rent Allowance which is recovered from the petitioner would be paid back to the petitioner, nothing remains for adjudication in the present Writ Petition. As far as deduction of income tax of Rs.10,138/- (Rupees ten thousand one hundred thirty eight) is concerned, the petitioner may make representation with the Respondents to that effect which would be considered by the Respondents on its own merits.

¶20

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶21

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

¶22

Dt.24.11.2014. asp/office/wp1280.14

¶23

¶24

W.P.No.1280/14

Akhtar Khan Usman Khan Pathan v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhtar Khan Usman Khan Pathan 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

Vrundawani Asaram Dhopate Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dattatraya Sadashiv Pupulwad Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Dwarkalal Shenfadu Shimre Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Ajay Vasantappa Shete Vs Sansthan Shri Guru Mahaling Math Bardapur Dist.Beed Thru Gpa Revansiddha Mahadevayya Hiremath and O

Nagnath Tulshiram Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Awazkhan Majitkhan Dulot Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others