Disposed

Dnyanada Bhagyaravi Kulkarni v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC15 Nov 2016WP/1297/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the timing of the reference u/s 451 filed after the notice, directed the State Government to decide it expeditiously within three months, and ordered payment of retirement benefits if the reference fails.

What did the court decide?

State Government to decide reference within 3 months; petitioner to appear on 5.12.2016; if reference negatived, respondent to pay pension and benefits within 2 months.

Dnyanada Bhagyaravi Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Corruption | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

WP 1297/15

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1297/2015

¶6

Dnyanada W/o Bhagyaravi Kulkarni.

¶7

..Petitioner ..

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & others.

¶10

 ...Respondents...

¶11

 .....

¶12

Shri R.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms.R.P.Gour, AGP for Respondent No.1.
Smt.Manjusha A. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2
to 4.

¶13

 .....

¶14

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
 K.L. WADANE, JJ.

¶15

DATE: 15.11.2016

¶16

ORDER :

¶17

1]Mr.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner was an employee of the
respondent – Corporation.In the departmental enquiry,

¶18

the petitioner was awarded punishment of deduction of 5%
pension. The petitioner filed an appeal before the

¶19

WP 1297/15

¶20

- 2 -

¶21

Standing Committee of the Corporation. On 16.4.2013, the
Standing Committee allowed the appeal and set aside the
office order dated 23.1.2013 imposing punishment upon the
petitioner. Though the appeal of the present petitioner

¶22

is allowed on 16.4.2013, the respondents have not
implemented the same and are not paying the pension and

¶23

retiral benefits as per the order of the Standing
Committee. The learned counsel submits that after the
present petitioner filed the instant writ petition, the

¶24

respondent nos.2 to 4, with a view to deprive the

¶25

petitioner of the benefits, have filed a reference u/s
451 of the Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporations
Act before the State Government. In fact, if such a

¶26

reference is to be made, the same has to be made
immediately. The respondents have approached the State
Government after two years and more particularly after

¶27

issuance of notice in the present writ petition, which is
not permissible. This shows that the respondent nos.2 to
4 have approached the State Government in a pre-

¶28

determined manner, not to award the benefits of the order
of the Standing Committee to the petitioner. The same is
afterthought. The petitioner is a senior citizen.

¶29

WP 1297/15 - 3 -

¶30

2]Smt.M.A.Deshpande,learnedcounselforthe
respondent nos.2 to 4 submits that the reference is
pending before the Government u/s 451 of the Maharashtra
Provincial Municipal Corporations Act and the same is
required to be decided. The petitioner is being paid the
provisional pension.

¶31

3]Mr.Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
relies on the judgment delivered by this Court in Writ
Petition No.4146/2014 dated 8.5.2015.

¶32

4]We have considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned counsel for the parties.

¶33

5]It is not in dispute that the Corporation has
approached the State Government u/s 451 of the

¶34

Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporations Act. It is
more than one and half years, the said reference is
pending. The petitioner can put forth all the grounds
agitated by her, and as argued, before the State
Government either in person or through her Advocate.
6]Considering the fact that the reference is pending
before the State Government for more than one and half
years and further the fact that the petitioner is a
senior citizen, we pass the following order.

WP 1297/15

- 4 -

O R D E R

I]The State Government shall decide the
reference filed by the respondent nos.2 to 4
u/s 451 of the Maharashtra Provincial
Municipal Corporations Act challenging the
order of the Standing Committee expeditiously
and preferably within a period of three
months.

¶39

II]The petitioner may appear before the
State Government on 5.12.2016 and represent
either herself before the State Government or
through her Advocate.

¶40

III]In case the reference of the respondent

¶41

nos.2 to 4 is negatived by the State
Government, then the respondent nos.2 to 4
shall pay all the retiral benefits to the
petitioner alongwith pension as per the order
of the Standing Committee within a period of

¶42

two months from the date of order of the
State Government in the reference u/s 451.

¶43

IV]Needless to state, further avenue is
open to the parties in case the State

¶44

WP 1297/15

¶45

- 5 -

¶46

Government decides the reference in either
way.

¶47

V]Writ petition is accordingly disposed

¶48

of. No costs.

¶49

 (K.L. WADANE, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶50

ndk/ c15111619.doc

Dnyanada Bhagyaravi Kulkarni v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dnyanada Bhagyaravi Kulkarni v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Sandip Jugalkishor Agrawal Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Vinay Tilokchand Karnavat Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Sandip Jugalkishor Agrawal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhagirathi Gangadhar Bhujbal and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kishor Suresh Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajendra Shikharchand Patodi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others