Disposed

Hemant Raghunath Mahale v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Apr 2014WP/5031/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking pay scale of a trained teacher. The petitioner, lacking a D.Ed. or B.Ed. degree but being a graduate, relied on a Government Resolution. The Court directed the respondent authority to consider the case expeditiously within three months, leaving contentions open for a comprehensive representation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's case for pay scale of trained teacher within three months.

Hemant Raghunath Mahale Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

5031.12wp

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

|
Office Notes, Office|
|| |---|---| |Memoranda of Coram,|
|
Court's or Judge's orders| |appearances, Court's|

|| |
orders or directions||| |and Registrar's orders||| ||____________________________________
WRIT PETITION NO. 5031 OF 2012|

¶6

HEMANT RAGHUNATH MAHALE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Pawar Ajay D. AGP for Respondents 1 to 3: Mrs.M.A. Deshpande.

¶8

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & V.K. JADHAV, JJ. Dated: April 23, 2014

¶9

Heard.

¶10

2 Learned Counsel for the petitioner has tendered across Bar photocopy of the Government Resolution dated 6th February, 2011 issued by the Social Justice and Special Assistance department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. Relying upon the said Government Resolution and the documents annexed to the said G.R., the Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not

¶11

5031.12wp

¶12

¶13

possess degree of D.Ed. or B.Ed. Nevertheless, he is graduate and in view of the aforementioned G.R., his case deserves to be considered and pay scale of trained teacher is required to be given to him.

¶14

3 Petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of Government Resolution dated 5th February, 2011 and other relevant Government Resolutions, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three moths from today.

¶15

Needless to observe that if the concerned authority feels that the petitioner should be personally heard, the concerned authority can issue notice asking the petitioner to appear before the said authority. It is for the concerned authority to decide the issue raised. All the contentions raised in this petition are left open to the petitioner to be taken in the comprehensive representation which would be filed by the petitioner before the respondent No.2. The petitioner, through his Counsel, undertakes to file such representation with documents on which the petitioner wishes to place reliance, within one month from today. The

¶16

5031.12wp

¶17

¶18

respondent No.2 shall decide the same within three months from the date filing such representation.

¶19

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

¶20

kadam/

Hemant Raghunath Mahale v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant Raghunath Mahale v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Kishor Vasantrao Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sambhaji Narayan Dewate and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shivparvati Vikas Sansthas Arts College, Rashin, Karjat, Dist.- Ahmednagar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Suresh Trimbakrao Deshpande Vs Idbi Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Renuka Bahu Uddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha, Beed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Walmik Bhanudas Bagul Vs Megha Walmik Bagul