Partly allowed

Sukeshini Pratap Bhopte v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Mar 2015WP/2324/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay partly allowed two writ petitions seeking regularization of service. The court directed respondents to regularize and confer permanency on petitioners with three years of service, but denied monetary benefits for past service.

What did the court decide?

Regularization of service, conferment of permanency, absorption within six weeks, and payment of regular salary from the date of absorption without monetary benefits for past service.

Sukeshini Pratap Bhopte Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

bsb 1

¶2

WP2324-2325.15.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2324 OF 2015

¶5

Sukeshini Pratap Bhopte ... Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents

¶6

ALONG WITH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 2325 OF 2015

¶8

Sukhdev Babaso Waghmode … Petitioner v/s The State of Maharashtra & ors. … Respondents

¶9

Mr.Surel S. Shah for the Petitioners in both petitions.

¶10

Ms.S.S. Bhende, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in both petitions.

¶11

CORAM: MRS. VASANTI A. NAIK & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

¶12

DATE: 9TH MARCH^, 2015

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

Heard.

¶15

The learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the issue involved in these cases was also involved in Writ Petition No.2046 of 2010 and the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court had, by the judgment dated 19.10.2013 partly allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to regularize the services and confer the permanency on such petitioners, who have completed 3 years'

¶16

bsb 2 WP2324-2325.15.doc

¶17

service with technical breaks. It is stated that by the said judgment, the High Court has protected the petitioners, who were in continuous employment. The learned Counsel states that a similar order may be passed in these cases also and the respondents may be directed to pay the regular salary from 1.4.2015.

¶18

Ms.Bhende, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, does not dispute the statement made on behalf of the petitioners.

¶19

Hence, for the reasons recorded in the judgment dated 19.10.2013 in Writ Petition No.2046 of 2010, we partly allow these writ petitions and direct the respondents to regularize the services and confer permanency on such petitioners, who have completed 3 years of service with technical breaks and who are still in service. The respondents are directed to absorb the petitioners within a period of 6 weeks and pay the regular salary to the petitioners from the date of their absorption. Just like the order passed in the Writ Petition No.2046 of 2010, though we direct the respondents to grant continuity of service to the petitioners, we make it clear that the petitioners would not be entitled to claim any monetary benefits towards the past services rendered by them.

¶20

Order accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶21

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) ( VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

Sukeshini Pratap Bhopte v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukeshini Pratap Bhopte v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary 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

Miss. Sarika Baburao Hatkar Vs Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No. 2, Kolhapur and Ors.

Miss. Sarika Baburao Hatkar Vs Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No. 2, Kolhapur and Ors.

Sou. Aparna Vinodkumar Kamble and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Gopalkrishna Shrinivas Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gopalkrishna Shrinivas Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.