Disposed

Dr.Premsing S/O Shivpalsingh Sayar v. the State of Maharashtra, through

Bombay HC15 Jun 2016WP/3523/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging fixation of pay-scale. Court found lack of documentary proof regarding contract basis of service despite affidavits. Directed petitioners to produce material and liberty to make representation to fixing date.

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioners to appear before Respondent No.2. Granting liberty to make a representation with documents pointing out they were never working on contract basis within three weeks. Respondent N

Dr.Premsing S/O Shivpalsingh Sayar Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp3523.15

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3523 OF 2015 Dr. Premsingh S/o Shivpalsingh Sayar and ors

¶5

..vs..

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, thr Principal Secretary Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors

¶7

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

¶8

Court's or Judge's Order

¶9

Shri F.T. Mirza, counsel for the petitioners. Mrs.Ketki Joshi, AGP for R-1 to 3.

¶10

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & KUM. I.K. JAIN, JJ. DATED : JUNE 15, 2016.

¶11

Heard learned counsel Shri F.T. Mirza for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mrs. Ketji Joshi for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Nobody appears for respondent No.4.

¶12

The short grievance is, the services rendered by the petitioners from 1994-95 onwards till the college, in which they were working, started receiving grants in 2004, ought to have looked into and their fixation as per the impugned order should have been arrived at accordingly. The impugned order, which fixes them at the beginning on the pay-scale of Rs.82,000-275-13500, therefore, is erroneous.

¶13

Learned counsel Shri F.T. Mirza for the petitioners has attempted to show that initially their

.....2/-

wp3523.15

services were approved on full time basis for one year i.e. from 31.12.1994 till 30.4.1995 and, thereafter, from Academic Session 1995-96 onwards. He contends, thus there is no material to show that petitioners were working on contract basis. He also invites our attention to the replyaffidavit filed by respondent No.4 to substantiate his contention.

¶18

Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mrs. Ketki Joshi for respondent Nos.1 to 3 is relying upon the reply-affidavit. She submits that respondent No.1 and 2, after due verification of records, have found that the petitioners were working on contract basis. As such, services rendered by them, in that capacity, have nor been rightly considered.

¶19

Though respondent Nos.1 and 2 on affidavit state that the petitioners were working on contract basis, there is no document placed on record by them to support this statement. The documents produced by the petitioners show that the petitioners were initially granted approval for one year as full time employees and, thereafter, permanent approval again on full time basis. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not explained these documents also.

¶20

In this situation, without observing anything on merits, the interest of justice can be met with by directing the petitioners to appear before respondent No.2

.....3/-

wp3523.15

and produce all relevant material. We grant the petitioners liberty to make a representation to respondent No.2 with necessary documents pointing out that they were never working on contract basis. If such representation is received within a period of three weeks from today, respondent No.2 shall hear them and respondent No.4-management and thereafter take decision on it within next four weeks.

¶25

With these directions and keeping all contentions open, we dispose of the writ petition. No costs.

¶26

JUDGE JUDGE

¶27

!! BRW !!

¶28

...../-

Dr.Premsing S/O Shivpalsingh Sayar v. the State of Maharashtra, through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Premsing S/O Shivpalsingh Sayar v. the State of Maharashtra, through

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

Mrs. Rekha W/O Wardharaj Pilley Vs Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad Nagpur and Others

Dr. Vandanatai Dhone Nursing School, Akola through Its Director, Dr. Sudhir S/O Shridharrao Dhone Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Deptt., Mumbai and 2 Others

Shivaji S/O. Ninaji Patil Vs the State of Maha., through Sect. Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Others

Sunil S/O Vithalrao Kodape Vs Principal, Shri. Bhaiyaji Pandharipande National Institute of Social Work, Nagpur and 7 Others

Maha. Rajaya Hamal Mapadi Mahamandal, Nagpur, through Vice President Dr. Harish Dhurat Vs State of Maha., Industries, Energy and Labour Dept., Mumbai, by Its Secretary and Others

Kedarnath Gangadharji Agrawal Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary in Ministry of Urban Development and 2 Others