Dismissed

Abdul Rasheed Mohd Ibrahim Ansari v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC15 Dec 2016WP/3711/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judgment disposed of eleven writ petitions filed by judicial officers and officers functioning in District and Sessions Courts. The court held that a Government Resolution dated 18th October 2016, clarifying the applicability of Shetti Commission Pay Recommendations, redressed the grievances. The writs were dismissed with directions to refrain from recovery of amounts and to re-fix pay

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to effect recovery of amounts; to refund amounts if already recovered; and to re-fix pay scales within six months.

Abdul Rasheed Mohd Ibrahim Ansari Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 12250 OF 2016

¶3

(Venkat S/o Ramrao More Vs. State of Maharashtra and

¶4

others)

¶5

AND

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 11964 OF 2016

¶7

(Limbaji S/o Satwaji Bhokre Vs. State of Maharashtra and

¶8

others)

¶9

AND

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 7461 OF 2016

¶11

(Uttershver S/o Sadhuji Kagde Vs. State of Maharashtra

¶12

and others)

¶13

AND

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO. 3711 OF 2016

¶15

(Abdul Rasheed S/o Mohd. Ibrahim Ansari Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others)

¶16

AND

¶17

WRIT PETITION NO.7655 OF 2016

¶18

(Ramakant S/o Bhagwanrao Bavikar Vs. State of

¶19

Maharashtra and others)

¶20

AND

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO.7799 OF 2016

¶22

(Aatmaram S/o Ranganath Waghmare Vs. State of

¶23

Maharashtra and others)

¶24

AND

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO. 9005 OF 2016

¶26

(Suryakant Purushottamrao Gubbi and another Vs. The
State of Maharashtra and others)

¶27

AND

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO.9508 OF 2016

¶29

(Bhagwan S/o Babasaheb Garud Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others)

¶30

AND

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO.9730 OF 2016

¶32

(Girish S/o Shrirampant Rushipathak and others Vs. State
of Maharashtra and others)

¶33

AND

¶34

WRIT PETITION NO.12398 OF 2016

¶35

(Shankar S/o Shamrao Niwdange Vs. State of Maharashtra
and others)

¶36

AND

¶37

WRIT PETITION NO.12399 OF 2016

¶38

(Jaiprakash Gulabrao Ghorpade and others Vs. The State
of Maharashtra and others)

¶39

¶40

wp12250-2016+

¶41

Mr. Ajay S. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner/s in
Writ Petition Nos.12399/2016, 9005/2016,

¶42

Mr. Gaurav L. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner/s
in Writ Petition Nos.12398/2016, 9730/2016, 7799/2016,
7655/2016, 3711/2016, 7461/2016, 11964/2016, 12250/2016,
Mr. P.S.Paranjape, Advocate for the petitioner/s in writ
petition no.9508/2016

¶43

Mr. Y.G. Gujrathi, Mr. A.S. Shinde and Mr. V.M. Kagne,
A.G.Ps. for the respondents/State

¶44

Mr. Rajendra S. Deshmukh, Mr. Nitin B. Suryawanshi and
Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocates for the respective
respondents in the respective writ petitions

¶45

CORAM :R.M. BORDE AND

¶46

SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

¶47

DATE : 15th December, 2016

¶48

PER COURT:

¶49

Heard.

¶50

2.Time to carry out the amendment in Writ

¶51

Petition No. 3711 of 2016, is extended. The amendment be
carried out forthwith.

¶52

3.The learned counsel for the respondents places
on record Government Resolution dated 18th October,

¶53

2016, whereunder, the State Government has issued

¶54

clarification in respect of applicability of Shetti

¶55

Commission Pay Recommendations. The Government

¶56

¶57

wp12250-2016+

¶58

Resolution has been issued in pursuance to the

¶59

directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 429
of 2015 Amanullah Khan S/o. Amir Khan Pathan Vs. State
of Maharashtra, decided on 13.8.2014. The State has
taken decision to make applicable the pay scales
prescribed by the Government Resolution to the
SuperintendentsandAssistantSuperintendents,
functioning in the District and Sessions Courts and
Courts subordinate thereto forming part of the District
Judiciary.

¶60

4.Copy of the Government Resolution is taken on

¶61

record and marked “X” for the purpose of identification.
In view of the Government Resolution dated 18.10.2016,
the grievance raised by the petitioner in the instant
petitions stands redressed.

¶62

5.Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of.
The respondents are directed not to effect recovery of
the amount directed under the orders, impugned in the
respective Writ Petitions. If the recovery is already
effected, the amounts so recovered shall be refunded to
the concerned petitioner/s expeditiously. As a
consequence of the decision taken by the State

¶63

wp12250-2016+

¶64

¶65

Government, the pay scale applicable to the petitioners
shall have to be re-fixed and the respondents shall take
appropriate steps in that regard, as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of six months from
today. In the circumstances, there shall be no orders as
to costs.

¶66

npj/wp12250-2016+

Abdul Rasheed Mohd Ibrahim Ansari v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rasheed Mohd Ibrahim Ansari 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayram Gena Mete and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhagwat Narayan Muthal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Poona P U C and Centre through Its Proprietor Akbar Khan Sardar Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Subhash Balaji Wani and Anothers Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramakant Bhagwanrao Bavikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Uttershver Sadhuji Kagde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others