Dismissed

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

Bombay HC19 Sept 2014WP/421/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged termination of services as Gram Rozgar Sevak via a Gram Sabha resolution. Court declined writ interference asGram Sabha followed procedure, granted hearing, and passed resolution by majority post-hearing.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

What the court decided

Sanjay S/O Sahdeorao Raut Vs State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP421-14

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR</u>

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 421/2014

¶5

(SANJAY SAHDEORAO RAUT VERSUS STATE OF MAH. & OTHERS)

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

- - - - Shri S.S. Dhengale, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. K.R. Deshpande, A.G.P. for the R-1. Shri P.S. Patil, counsel for the R- 2 to 4.

¶10

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND

¶11

P.R. BORA, JJ.

¶12

DATE : SEPTEMBER 19, 2014.

¶13

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the resolution of the Gram Sabha dated 30.12.2013.

¶14

The petitioner was working as a Gram Rozgar Sevak and his services were terminated in view of the resolution of the Gram Sabha dated 03.12.2013. According to the petitioner, the Gram Sabha decided to terminate the services of the petitioner as a Gram Rozgar Sevak on the ground that the petitioner had made some false entries in respect of payments made to Vatsala Bhetalu and Chandrakala Bhetalu though they had expired long back. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had not made the false entries. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a copy of extract of the entries made by the petitioner to substantiate his submission.

¶15

On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent nos.2 to 4 that the services of the petitioner were not terminated only because of the aforesaid complaint. It is stated that more than hundred villagers had complained against the functioning of the petitioner and, hence, the Gram Sabha was held. It is stated that in the Gram Sabha, the petitioner was granted an opportunity of hearing and after hearing the petitioner, the

¶16

WP421-14

¶17

¶18

resolution was passed by a majority. The learned counsel sought for the dismissal of the petition.

¶19

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that it would not be possible for us to interfere with the resolution passed by the Gram Sabha in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. It appears from a reading of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent nos.2 to 4 that several complaints were made against the petitioner and the petitioner's services were terminated after the resolution was passed by the required majority. This Court would not sit in appeal over the resolution of the Gram Sabha, specially when the petitioner was heard by the members of the Gram Sabha and the resolution was passed after giving an opportunity to the petitioner.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

APTE

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kavita W/O Sharad Nakave Vs Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Pulgaon and 2 Others

Swa.Vithoba Dewaji Bawane Guruji Smriti Vrisharopan,Sawardhan Shik.Sanstha,Thr.Pre.Meghnath v.Bawan Vs Secretary, Ministry of Education, State of Maharashtra, Mumbai

Sau Rekha W/O Deepak Chimote Vs Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Ministry of Education, Bombay and Others

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

Ku. Saba Nasreen D/O Abdul Samed Ansari Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Education, Mumbai and 3 Others