Disposed

Bajirang Abasaheb Tapse and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC1 Apr 2016WP/1860/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Appellate Side, Bench at Aurangabad, in two writ petitions concerning Zilla Parishad employees, directed the State to decide whether to apply the Kalelkar Settlement to replace the Maruf Agreement. The court set a timeline of 12 weeks for the decision.

What did the court decide?

Directed the State Government to decide on the proposal dated 1.6.2015 forwarded by Respondent No.3 regarding the applicability of Kalelkar Settlement within 12 weeks.

Bajirang Abasaheb Tapse and Others Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1695.16wp+

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

¶6

______________________________________________________ WRIT PETITION NO.1695 OF 2016

¶7

SHRIRAM DEVRAO DHERE AND OTHERS
VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶9

...

¶10

Advocate for Petitioners:Mr.Wagh Pradip K.
AGP for Respondents/State: Mr.Mr.S.G.
Karlekar.

¶11

Advocate for Respondents: Mr.Aghav Avinash
D for R.No.3; Mr.Suryawanshi Prashant D.
for R.No.2.

¶12

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO. 1860 OF 2016

¶14

BAJIRANG ABASAHEB TAPSE AND OTHERS
VERSUS

¶15

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶16

...

¶17

Advocate for Petitioners:Mr.Wagh Pradip K.
AGP for Respondents 1 & 2:Mr.S.B.Yawalkar.
Advocate for Respondent 3: Mr.Aaghav
Avinash D.

¶18

...

¶19

CORAM:S.S.SHINDE & SANGITRAO S.PATIL, JJ.
 Dated: APRIL 01, 2016

¶20

ORAL ORDER:

¶21

1)Heard the learned Counsel for the

¶22

1695.16wp+

¶23

¶24

parties. Perused the pleadings in the
petition and the documents placed on
record.

¶25

2)The learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that, in case of the
employees in the employment of Zilla
Parishad, Osmanabad and Latur, though
'Maruf agreement' was made applicable,
governing their service conditions,
subsequently,applicationofsaid
agreement was cancelled and 'Kalelkar
Settlement' is made applicable governing
their service conditions. The statement
made by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners is also confirmed by
learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondent No.3/Zilla Parishad. He
submits that, already proposal is
forwarded by the Respondent No.3 to
Respondent No.1, requesting for applying
'Kalelkar Settlement' instead of 'Maruf
Agreement' to the employees of the
Respondent No.3. There is innocuous
prayer in the petition inasmuch as,
direction is sought to Respondent No.1 to
decide the proposal dated 1.6.2015
submitted by Respondent No.3 in respect of
applicability of the provisions of
'Kalelkar Settlement' to the petitioners

¶26

1695.16wp+

¶27

¶28

and in case of other employees working
under Zilla Parishad, Beed, like same is
made applicable to the employees working
under Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad and
Latur.

¶29

3)In that view of the matter, we direct
Respondent No.1-State to take a decision
on the said proposal dated 1.6.2015
forwarded by Respondent no.3, if
necessary, after hearing the parties, as
expeditiously as possible, and preferably
within a period of twelve (12) weeks from
today and communicate the said decision to
the petitioners and Respondent No.3. We
make it clear that we have not expressed
any opinion on merits, and it is left to
Respondent No.1 to take appropriate
decision.

¶30

4)The Writ Petitions are disposed of on
above terms.

¶31

.Parties to act upon authenticated
copy of this order.

¶32

(SANGITRAO S.PATIL, J)(S.S. SHINDE, J)

¶33

kadam/

Bajirang Abasaheb Tapse and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajirang Abasaheb Tapse and Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Conference of Churches of Christ in Western India, Pune through Its Secretary Robert Vasant Gaikwa Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prabhawati Baburao Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Voluntary Prathamik Mahila Mandal School, Nandurbar Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Shriram Devrao Dhere and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dattatraya Sudamrao Chate and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gram Panchayat Surala through Its Upsarpanch Jagannath Ganpat Aher and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others