Petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition after realizing a failure by the School Tribunal to mention reinstatement and consequential benefits, and requested withdrawal of the petition.
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.
wp686-13
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No.686 OF 2013
Shankar s/o Mahadeo Gayki Vrs. The Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and others.
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders
Court's or Judge's orders
Shri N.S. Warulkar, counsel for the petitioner. Miss. Tajwar Khan, AGP for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Shri K.V. Deshmukh, counsel for respondent no.3.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND V.K. JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : 18TH JULY , 2014 .
Shri Warulkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner has now realized that the School Tribunal had failed to mention in the operating part of the judgment dated 15.6.2009 that the petitioner should be reinstated in service with continuity of service and all “consequential benefits”. The learned counsel states that the petitioner is, therefore, desirous of assailing the judgment of the School Tribunal dated 15.6.2009, so far as it rejects the prayer of the petitioner for grant of consequential benefits. The learned counsel seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition in this background.
Permission is granted. Writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Hirekhan
Shankar s/o Mahadeo Gayki
The Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur
others
Vasanti A. Naik
V.K. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
