Disposed

Dr. Rakeshkumar Trivedy v. the Registrar - Pune University and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Sept 2016WP/2088/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short order directed the Joint Director to decide the petitioner's service/dependency claim within three months upon receiving a positive recommendation from the University. The matter was disposed of with a direction for expeditious decision and extension of monetary benefits if applicable.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to decide petitioner's claim within three months and extend monetary benefits if entitled.

Dr. Rakeshkumar Trivedy Vs the Registrar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

45-CAW-457.2014.sxw

hvn

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 2088 OF 2008 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 457 OF 2014 IN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 2088 OF 2008

¶8

Dr. Rakeshkumar Trivedi

¶9

… Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

The Registrar, Pune University and Ors. … Respondents

¶12

Ms.Kumud Bhatia for the petitioner.

¶13

Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for respondent nos. 5 to 7. Mr. Rajendra Anabhule for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶14

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & MAKARAND KARNIK, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 06, 2016.

¶15

P.C.

¶16

This court while admitting the petition on 31.3.2008 directed respondent nos. 5 and 6 to process the case papers of the petitioner. It has been stated by the leaned counsel for the University that the petitioner's papers have been processed and the matter has been sent to the Joint Director, respondent no. 5 vide communication dated 11.10.2014 Annex. J recommending the petitioner's claim in terms of the said communication.

¶17

¶18

45-CAW-457.2014.sxw

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said clarification/recommendation made by the University on 11.10.2014 has to be further processed by respondent no.5 and appropriate decision on it is required to be taken but till date, even after about two years, respondent no. 5 has not taken any decision.

¶20

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are inclined to dispose of this petition by directing respondent no.5 to consider the petitioner's case papers as directed by this Court while admitting the petition after taking into consideration the recommendations/clarification received from the University vide letter dated 11.10.2014 Annex. J. Let the decision as aforesaid be taken by respondent no. 5 as expeditiously as possible but not latter than three moths from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the petitioner is found entitled for the reliefs claimed, the consequential monetary benefits be also extended within the said period.

¶21

With the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of.

¶22

In view of the above, Civil Application also stands disposed of.

¶23

(MAKARAND KARNIK, J.)

¶24

(SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)

Dr. Rakeshkumar Trivedy v. the Registrar - Pune University and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Rakeshkumar Trivedy v. the Registrar - Pune University 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

Yasmin E. Tavaria Vs the Executive Engineer, M.B.R. and R. B. and 2 Ors.

Shri. Kailas Shankar Shinde and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principle Secretary and Anr.

Sarvodaya Shikshan Sanstha Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Anr.

Chinchani Tarapur Education Society, and Anr. Vs University of Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Vishnudev Co.Op. Hsg. Soc. through Secretary/Chairman Vs Revenue and Forest Department through Minister and Ors.

Shri Krishna Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Solapur and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Social Welfare and Special Assistance Dept. and Ors.