Allowed

Shri.Suresh S/O Pralhad Gajbhiye v. Maharashtra State Warehousing Corpn.Ltd.Pune and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Jan 2015WP/201/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Joint disposal of three writ petitions challenging service matters against Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation. The High Court allowed the petitions in terms of an amicable settlement agreement entered by the parties during proceedings, restoring benefits without back wages.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of in terms of mutual consent terms signed by the parties for reinstatement without back wages.

Shri.Suresh S/O Pralhad Gajbhiye Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

WP201-29.1

1/2

PNP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.201 OF 2004

¶7

Suresh Pralhad Gajbhiye versus Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation and another

¶8

...Petitioner.

¶9

..Respondents.

¶10

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7759 OF 2003

¶11

Kumar Rajendra Pawar versus Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation and others

¶12

...Petitioner.

¶13

..Respondents.

¶14

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7377 OF 2003

¶15

Changdeo Rambhau Dube ...Petitioner. versus Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation and others ..Respondents.

¶16

Mr. S.S. Kulkarni for the Petitioners in WP/201/2004. Mr. M.S. Karnik for the Petitioners in WP/7759/2003 and WP/7377/2003. Mr. A.V. Chatuphale for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. C.P. Yadav, AGP for the State.

¶17

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & A.S. GADKARI, JJ.

¶18

29^th January, 2015.

¶19

P.C. :

¶20

Not on Board. Taken on Board.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the Respondents submit that the parties have amicably settled the issues in terms of the Consent Terms which are signed by the parties and the learned counsel. The Consent Terms are taken on record and marked

WP201-29.1

2/2

PNP

as 'X' for identification. The learned counsel have identified the parties who according to the learned counsel are present in the Court. The Consent Terms are identical in nature in all the above Petitions which read as under :

¶26

CONSENT TERMS

¶27

The Petitioners and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have decided to amicably settle the issues on the following terms :

¶28

a) The Petitioners will be reinstated on the post of Deputy Manager w.e.f. 3^rd November, 2003 with continuity of service but without backwages till the date of order after this settlement. b) The Petitioners pay will be fixed by giving notional increments at the time of joining.

¶29

c) The Petitioners will submit their affidavit to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, inter alia, accepting the above terms and conditions within a period of one week from the date of the execution of consent terms.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the Petitions may be disposed of in view of the Consent Terms.

¶31

The Petitions are disposed of in terms of the Consent Terms. Rule is discharged in terms of the Consent Terms.

¶32

(Naresh H. Patil, J.)

¶33

(A.S. Gadkari, J.)

Shri.Suresh S/O Pralhad Gajbhiye v. Maharashtra State Warehousing Corpn.Ltd.Pune and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Suresh S/O Pralhad Gajbhiye v. Maharashtra State Warehousing Corpn.Ltd.Pune and Anr.

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

Mr. Bhupal Mahipati Shete Major and Vs Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Nirbhay Foundation, through Shri. Manoj Suresh Pingale Vs Mumbai Nashik Exprressway Ltd. and Ors.

Mr. Bhupal Mahipati Shete Major and Vs Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Ors.

The Administrator, Union Territory of Daman Vs Rankaj R. Patel

Madhukar Uttamrao Suryawanshi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

J.R. Gaikwad and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.