Remanded

Mrs Sonali Rohan Bane v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Mar 2016WP/3029/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged refusal of promotion as Head Mistress. Court held Assistant Commissioner failed to issue notices to senior employees before rejecting proposal. Matter remanded for hearing seniors and re-hand. Writ petition disposed in these terms.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside. Matter remanded to Respondent No.3 to issue notice to Petitioner, Management and seniors; undertake decision within two months.

Mrs Sonali Rohan Bane Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

k 1/2 906 wp st 26233.14 as.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.26233 OF 2014

¶4

Mrs. Sonali Rohan Bane V/s.	...	Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.	...	Respondents

¶5

Mr. Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner. Mr. P.G. Sawant, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5/State.

¶6

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND A.A. SAYED, JJ .

¶7

3^rd March , 2016 .

¶8

P.C.

¶9

1 Petitioner claims that she was promoted as Head Mistress with effect from 11 June 2013. The Respondent Management forwarded a proposal for approval to her promotion. By communication dated 28 April 2014 the Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare, Mumbai Suburban refused approval while observing that the promotion ought to have been given by following seniority.

¶10

2 Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the persons who are senior to the Petitioner are not qualified to be promoted. The required qualification for the post is Diploma, which the Petitioner is possessing and others are not.

¶11

3 In the facts we find it appropriate to observe that the Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare, Mumbai Suburban ought to have issued notices to the employees who are seniors to the Petitioner in

¶12

k 2/2 906 wp st 26233.14 as.doc

¶13

the list maintained by the Respondent Management and after hearing the concerned parties, appropriate decision be taken.

¶14

4 Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the Petitioner, we are inclined to remand the matter back to the Respondent No.3 Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare, Mumbai Suburban.

¶15

Order

¶16

i) The Impugned order/communication dated 28 April 2014 is set aside. The matter is remanded back.

¶17

ii) Respondent No.3 Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare, Mumbai Suburban is directed to issue notice to the Petitioner, Respondent - Management and the persons/employees who are seniors to the Petitioner in service and thereafter take an appropriate decision in respect of the proposal submitted by the Respondent Management in respect of seeking approval to the promotion of the Petitioner. This exercise shall be completed within two months.

¶18

iii) Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶19

(A.A. SAYED, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶20

katkam

Mrs Sonali Rohan Bane v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Sonali Rohan Bane v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Mr. Shabaz Farukh Allarakhia Vs Mrs. Carla N Gannon and Anr.

Smt. Leena Shivaji Kshirsagar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.

Lalsingh Maktya Tadavi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Education Dept. and Ors.

Chairman Nivrati Seva Sangh, Ekatpur and Anr. Vs Miss Kamunnissa Ibrahim Inamdar and Ors.

Chairman Nivrati Seva Sangh, Ekatpur and Anr. Vs Miss Kamunnissa Ibrahim Inamdar and Ors.

Abhiraj Lahu Gosavi and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Dept. and Ors.