Petitioners challenged a Tribunal order directing payment of gratuity. Noting the stayed nature of the order and dismissal of the underlying application, the Court found the petition's purpose served and disposed of the matter with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
0307wp2355.99.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.2355 of 1999 (State of Maharashtra and others v. Manohar Nilkanth Dahikar)
Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order
Shri N.R. Rode, Assistant Government Pleader for Petitioners.
Coram : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik & V.K. Jadhav, JJ. Dated : 3rd July, 2014
By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal directing the petitioners to pay the provisional gratuity to the respondent within a period of two months.
This Court had, by an order dated 6-7-1999, stayed the impugned order. It is informed to this Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioners that the Original Application in which the order was passed at an interlocutory stage, is decided by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and the same has been dismissed on 24-4-2000.
2
0307wp2355.99.odt
Since the Original Application stands decided and since
this Court had stayed the impugned order, the purpose of filing the petition must have been served.
The petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.
Judge Judge
pdl
State of Maharashtra and others
Manohar Nilkanth Dahikar
Vasanti A. Naik
V. K. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
