Petition challenging retirement benefits declared as infructuous as petitioner was already retired; matter disposed without order regarding 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.
k 228 wp 3524.07 as.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3524 OF 2007
Vaijayanti Pramod Khasnis nee Vaijayanti Pandurang Tapaswi ... Petitioner. V/s. The Secretary Ghatkoper Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Ors. ... Respondents.
None for the Petitioners.
Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar for Respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. A.I. Patel, AGP for Respondent nos.3 to 5.
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA & A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATED : JULY 17, 2014.
P.C. :
statement that the Petitioner is already retired on 31 May 2014. Hence, the Petition become infructuous. There is no question of additional retirement benefits. In view of this, present Petition is disposed of.
(A.A. SAYED, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
katkam
1/1
Vaijayanti Pramod Khasnis
The Secretary Ghatkoper Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Anoop V. Mohta
A.A. Sayed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
