Allowed

Vasanta S/O Mukunda Nagose v. Scheduled Tribe Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli through Its Chairman and Others

Bombay HC15 Sept 2016CAW/1939/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application, the petitioner sought enforcement of an interim order directing salary payment. The Court noted payment had been made but ruled that future salary credits must go directly to the petitioner's account.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Application is allowed with a direction that henceforth the salary of the petitioner shall be directly credited to his account.

Vasanta S/O Mukunda Nagose Vs Scheduled Tribe… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

15.09.caw.1939.16

¶2

¶3

IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL APPPLICATION(W) NO 1939/2016

¶4

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1813/2014 (Vasanta s/o Mukunda Nagose vs. The Scheduled Tribe Certificates Scrutiny Committee and others )

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

Ms. P.D.Rane, Advocate for petitioner/applicant Ms. Ritu Kalia, AGP for respondents 2 and 5 Mr. Nihalsingh Rathod, Adv. for respondents 3 and 4

¶8

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ DATED : 15^th September, 2016

¶9

Heard.

¶10

By way of present Civil Application, the applicant has approached this Court, contending that the respondent nos. 3,4 and 5 have not paid the salary of the petitioner though vide interim order dated 9^th July 2014 this Court had directed that the petitioner’s services shall not be terminated.

¶11

This Court vide order dated 9^th July, 2014 had issued Rule and had also directed that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 shall not terminate the service of the petitioner on the ground of the order impugned in the petition. It was however made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any other benefits on the basis of belonging to Scheduled Tribe.

¶12

15.09.caw.1939.16

¶13

¶14

It is the contention of the respondent nos.3 and 4 that there was an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent nos.3 and 4 that during the pendency of the petition the petitioner would be paid salary of only Rs. 5000/- and the rest of the amount will be kept in the account of the Principal. It is submitted that it was done since it was apprehended by the Management that there might be recovery in the event the petitioner’s petition is dismissed. This fact is seriously disputed by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

Be that as it may, vide our order dated 31^st August, 2016 we had issued summons to the respondent nos.3 and 4 since they had not appeared inspite of duly served. Today, Shri Nihalsingh Rathod, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 states that the entire salary has been paid to the petitioner, which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

In that view of the matter, we find that the Civil Application has served its purpose. The Civil Application is allowed, with a direction to the respondent no.5 that hereinafter he shall directly credit the salary of the petitioner to the account of the petitioner.

¶17

JUDGEJUDGE

sahare

15.09.caw.1939.16

C E R T I F I C A T E

¶22

“ I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order.”

¶23

Uploaded by: N.B.Sahare P.S.

¶24

Uploaded on: 19.09.2016.

Vasanta S/O Mukunda Nagose v. Scheduled Tribe Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli through Its Chairman and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasanta S/O Mukunda Nagose v. Scheduled Tribe Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli through Its Chairman and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep S/O Remeshwar Rindhe Vs State of Maha. through Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Another

Shri Shardaprasad S/O Ramcharan Gupta and Another Vs Municipal Council of Umrer through Chief Officer, O/a Municipal Council, Umrer, Nagpur and Another

Smt. Kulwant Kaur Wd/O Manjit Singh Makan Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Department of Home, Mumbai and 6 Others

Sau. Priti W/O Vivek Mendhe (Nee Priti Rameshrao Udole) and Others Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Department of School Education and Sports, Mumbai and Another

Jan Manch, Nagpur, through Its Advisor Shri. S.W. Patil Vs State of Maha., Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Mumbai and Others

Kishorilal S/O Sukhram Rahangdale Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Home Department, Mumbai and Others