Partly allowed

Shivkumar S/O Madhukar Hadke v. Western Coalfields Ltd. (Govt. of India Undertaking) Thr. Chairman Cum M.D. Nagpur and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC6 Apr 2015WP/7265/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order partly allows four writ petitions and grants petitioners the benefits of Section 47 of the Persons With Disabilities Act, 1995. The court directs that pay protection applies only for three years preceding the filing of the writs, relying on a prior 2014 judgment.

What did the court decide?

Allowance of benefits under Section 47 of the Persons With Disabilities Act, 1995, limited to a period of three years preceding the filing of the writ petitions.

Shivkumar S/O Madhukar Hadke Vs Western… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1/3

¶2

wp6371.14+ 3

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 6371 OF 2014

¶5

Shamsuddin S/o Kalamat Khan

¶6

-vs-

¶7

Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur and others

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 5893 OF 2014

¶9

Pandurang S/o Chintaman Kadu

¶10

-vs-

¶11

Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur and others

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO. 7263 OF 2014

¶13

Ashok S/o Pundlik Wasnik

¶14

-vs-

¶15

Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur and others

¶16

WRIT PETITION NO. 7265 OF 2014

¶17

Shivkumar S/o Madhukar Hadke

¶18

-vs-

¶19

Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur and others

¶20

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶21

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶22

Mr.D.S.Thakur, counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

Mr.S.C.Mehadia, counsel for the respondents.

¶24

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & A.M.BADAR, JJ.

¶25

DATE : 06.04.2015.

¶26

Heard.

¶27

Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is identical and similar prayers are made by the petitioners herein, they are heard together and are decided by this common order.

¶28

Shri Thakur, the learned counsel for the petitioners, states that the issue involved in these cases stands answered in favour of the petitioners by the judgment

¶29

2/3

¶30

wp6371.14+ 3

¶31

in the case of Jayram v. Union of India, reported in 2014 (1) Mh.L.J. 370 . It is stated that after considering the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, this Court had partly allowed the writ petition and had granted the benefits under Section 47 of the Act of 1995 to the petitioner in the said writ petition. It is stated that this Court had restricted the relief in the form of difference of wages only for a period of three years preceding the filing of the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks a similar order in these cases also.

¶32

Shri Mehadia, the learned counsel for the respondents, does not dispute that similar writ petitions were decided by the common judgment dated 07/10/2013, reported in 2014 (1) Mh.L.J. 370 . It is admitted that in those cases, the petitioners were granted the benefits under Section 47 of the Act of 1995 and the pay of the petitioners therein is protected. In these cases also, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the monetary benefits may be restricted for a period of three years preceding the date of filing of the writ petitions.

¶33

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the judgment reported in 2014 (1) Mh.L.J. 370 as also the provisions of Section 47 of the Act of 1995, it appears that the relief sought by the petitioner is required to be granted.

¶34

Hence, for the reasons recorded in the judgment dated 07/10/2013 reported in 2014 (1) Mh.L.J. 370 , we partly allow these writ petitions. We hereby declare that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Section 47 of the Act of 1995 and the pay of the petitioners is required to be protected. The petitioners would, however, not be entitled to

¶35

3/3

¶36

wp6371.14+ 3

¶37

difference of pay or wages for a period of more than three years preceding the date of filing of the writ petitions. The petitioners would, therefore, be entitled to the monetary benefits only for a period of three years before the filing of the writ petitions. The respondents are directed to take necessary steps in pursuance of this order within a period of three months.

¶38

Order accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶39

JUDGE JUDGE

¶40

KHUNTE

Shivkumar S/O Madhukar Hadke v. Western Coalfields Ltd. (Govt. of India Undertaking) Thr. Chairman Cum M.D. Nagpur and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivkumar S/O Madhukar Hadke v. Western Coalfields Ltd. (Govt. of India Undertaking) Thr. Chairman Cum M.D. Nagpur and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Vijay S/O Pralhad Nage Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Akola and Another

Vyankatesh Reality, through Its Partner, Ashok Ratanlalji Soni Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and 3 Others

M/S Enestee Engineering Pvt. Ltd. through Signator Shri S.K. Panigrahi, Nagpur Vs Union of Indi Athrough, Its Chief Secretary, Ministry of Finance New Delhi and 3 Others

Ashok S/O Pundlik Wasnik Vs Western Coalfields Ltd. (Govt. of India Undertaking) Thr. Chairman Cum M.D. Nagpur and 2 Ors.

Sau. Dr. Jyoti Ajay Jawarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Urban Development, Mumbai and 3 Others

Panduran S/O Chintaman Kadu Vs Western Coalfields Ltd., Nagpur through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director and Anothers