Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Dept of Home Mantralaya, Mumbai and Another v. Gajanan Vitthal Palkar

Bombay HC7 Oct 2016WP/2568/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State Government filed a writ petition challenging a Tribunal order granting benefits to a former employee. The Court found the Tribunal's reasoning cogent and rejected the petition, directing the State to implement the order.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; State directed to implement Tribunal order within two months.

The State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Dept… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

wp2568.16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2568/2016

¶5

(The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mumbai and anr. ..vs.. Gajanan Vitthal Paikar)

¶6

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

¶7

Mr. D. P. Thakare, Addl. G. P. for petitioners. Mr. P. V. Shiralkar, Advocate for respondent.

¶8

CORAM : B. R. GAVAI AND V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 7, 2016.

¶9

The petition is filed by the State Government challenging the order passed by learned Tribunal on 18.06.2015 vide which the Original Application of the respondent has been allowed and the respondent has been directed to give benefits to the respondent as per the Government Resolution dated 11.01.2010.

¶10

The Tribunal after considering the material placed on record, came to the conclusion that the applicant was working in the Naxal infested area of Gadchiroli district as Assistant Sub Inspector and was working as Electrician in the Transport Department.

¶11

It is sought to be argued on behalf of the State Government that the respondent-applicant's post is not included in the Government Resolution.

¶12

The learned Tribunal, on the basis of material placed on record and various certificates placed on record,

¶13

¶14

wp2568.16

¶15

came to the conclusion that the petitioner was working in the interior areas of Gadchiroli district and his work was of vital nature, such as wherever there was break down of the vehicles, his services were required to be put in service.

¶16

We find that the tribunal has given sufficient and cogent reasons while allowing the Original Application. No case is made out for interference. The petition is, therefore, rejected.

¶17

We further direct the petitioner-State Government to implement the order passed by the learned Tribunal within a period of two months from today.

JUDGE JUDGE

kahale

wp2568.16

CERTIFICATE

I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct

¶24

copy of original signed Judgment/Order.

¶25

Uploaded by: Y. A. Kahale.

¶26

Uploaded On:10.10.2016

The State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Dept of Home Mantralaya, Mumbai and Another v. Gajanan Vitthal Palkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Dept of Home Mantralaya, Mumbai and Another v. Gajanan Vitthal Palkar

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

Kisan Sitaram Chaukhe Vs the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Gadchiroli Thr. Member Secretary and Others

Shri Chandrashekhar Shyamrao Tembhurne Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Thr Secretary Cooperative and Textile Dept. Mantralaya Mumbai and Oth

Pranita Govardhan Nannaware Vs the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Gadchiroli Thr. Member Secretary and Others

Shri Premsagar S/O Vithoba Meshram Vs Gram Panchayat Chicholim through Its Secretary and Others

Kale Impex Private Limited, through Its Director, Mr. Mohan Sudhakar Kale and Others Vs Union of India, through Its Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi and Others

Nagari Hakka Saurakshan Manch Bearing Thr. Central President Shri. Janardan Moon Vs Shri Shrawan Hardikar, Commissioner N.M.C. and Others