Disposed

Pandit Shankar Kapadnis and Anr. v. the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Dec 2016WP/14114/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of writ petition regarding non-allowance to join schools after reinstatement. Court directed petitioner-reinstatement and respondent officials to allow joining at specified schools. Petitioners allowed representation within four weeks post-joining.

What did the court decide?

Directed Petitioners and Respondents 1 to 3 to allow Petitioners to join at respective schools; representation allowed within four weeks post-joining.

Pandit Shankar Kapadnis and Anr. Vs the Chief… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 of 2 SB.904.WP.14114.2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.14114 OF 2016

¶4

Pandit Shankar Kapadnis and another Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

The Chief Executive Officer, Z.P. and others

¶7

Respondents

¶8

Mr.Tushar Sonawane for Petitioners. Mr.A.R.Kapadnis for Respondents 1 to 3. Mr.S.B.Kalel, AGP, for Respondent no.4.

¶9

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 23^rd December 2016

¶11

PC :

¶12

Heard learned counsel for parties. The grievance of the Petitioners is that in spite of there being an order of reinstatement dated 24th May 2016 (Exhibit-D to the petition), in respect to both the Petitioners, the Respondent no.1 is not allowing the Petitioners to join at the respective places. Learned counsel for Respondent no.1, on instructions, has stated that in view of communication received from Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samitee, Bagalan, the Petitioners were not allowed to join at the respective places from where they were suspended. He, however, submits that Respondent nos.1 and 2 will allow Petitioner no.2 to join at the school at Jaikheda Muley and Petitioner no.1 will be allowed to join at Primary School at Eklehere.

¶13

SB.904.WP.14114.2016

¶14

In view of aforesaid, we dispose of the petition by directing the Petitioners as also Respondent nos.1 to 3, to allow the Petitioners to join at the respective places as stated aforesaid. In case Petitioners feel aggrieved by this arrangement, it would be open for them to make a representation before Respondent no.1, who shall consider the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, but not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. Needless to state that we have not commented on the entitlement of Petitioners to remain at the place of their original postings. Needless to further state that right to make representation, as above, will be available to the Petitioners only after their joining.

¶15

With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of.

¶16

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

¶17

MST

Pandit Shankar Kapadnis and Anr. v. the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandit Shankar Kapadnis and Anr. v. the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad 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

Shri. Vijaykumar Sadashiv Nimbalkar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mak Pan Associates Represented through Partners Vs Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority through Chief Executive Officer and Ors.

Mohammad Ayub Peer Mohd Vs Malegaon Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Shri. Sampat Mahadeo Jadhav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharasthra and Ors.

Laxman Pandurang Jadhav and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Gangaram Marya Mhatre (Decd) Smt. Babibai G. Mhatre (Decd) Lrs. and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.