Dismissed

Gopal S/O Balaji Zade v. State of Mah., Animal Husbandry, Dairy and Fisheries Development Department,Thr. Principal Secretar

Bombay HC22 Sept 2014WP/1545/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) dismissed a writ petition challenging the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's order rejecting a claim for interest on subsistence allowance, holding there was no statutory provision for such interest.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Gopal S/O Balaji Zade Vs State of Mah… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1/2

¶2

wp1545.1 4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1545 OF 2014

¶5

Gopal Balaji Zade

¶6

-vs-

¶7

State of Maharashtra and others

¶8

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶9

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶10

Mr.V.P.Marpakwar, counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & P. R. BORA, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 22.09.2014.

¶13

By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 20/09/2013 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for payment of interest on the amount of subsistence allowance.

¶14

On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that there is no scope for interference with the impugned order, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner for reviewing the order passed on the original application was dismissed. The petitioner was claiming interest on the amount of subsistence allowance paid to the petitioner. Since the petitioner had relied on the Government Resolution dated 22/11/1994 for claiming the interest and since the said resolution was not applicable to such cases, the Tribunal rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of interest on the subsistence allowance. We asked the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶15

2/2

¶16

wp1545.1 4

¶17

whether there was any provision prescribing the payment of interest on the amount of subsistence allowance. The learned counsel for the petitioner was, however, not in a position to point out any such Provision, Rule or Regulation. In the absence of any right in the petitioner to claim interest on the amount of subsistence allowance, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the review application filed by the petitioner.

¶18

Since there is no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶19

JUDGE JUDGE

¶20

KHUNTE

Gopal S/O Balaji Zade v. State of Mah., Animal Husbandry, Dairy and Fisheries Development Department,Thr. Principal Secretar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal S/O Balaji Zade v. State of Mah., Animal Husbandry, Dairy and Fisheries Development Department,Thr. Principal Secretar

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

Sanjay S/O Sahdeorao Raut Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Employement Guarantee Scheme, Mumbai and 3

Tanvir Ahmed Khan Shabbir Khan Vs Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Division, Amravati and Others

Arun S/O Narayanrao Mattalwar Vs Rashtriya Vaidya Prasarak Mandal, Akola and Anothers

Vinayak S/O Pralhad Tikar and 2 Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary Social Welfare Department, Mumbai and Anothers

Shah Vajeda Bano Bashir Shah Vs State of Mah., Thr. Ecretary, Department of Social Justice, Cultural Afairs and Special Assistance

Prakash S/O Prabhakar Sandiman Vs Principal Hislop College and Another