Partly allowed

Sagar S/O Mohan Yelguntwar and Another v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another

Bombay HC2 Aug 2016WP/446/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench disposed of the writ petition regarding petitioner No.2 Pramod Motiram Gokhe's eligibility for a 'Special Backward Class' vacancy after a correction in the respondent's communication. The court set aside the claim of petitioner No.1 Sagar Yelguntwar as no vacancies were available and kept his grievance open.

What did the court decide?

Petition of petitioner No.2 disposed with direction to consider eligibility; grievance of petitioner No.1 kept open with liberty to approach again.

Sagar S/O Mohan Yelguntwar and Another Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp446.15

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.446 OF 2015 Sagar s/o Mohan Yelguntwar and anr

¶5

..vs..

¶6

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, MSRTC, Mumbai thr its General Manager and anr

¶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 C.V. Jagdale, counsel for the petitioners. Shri V.H. Kedar, counsel for the respondents.

¶10

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & KUM. INDIRA K. JAIN, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 2, 2016.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

It appears that large number of vacancies were inadvertently mentioned and the respondents, thereafter, had corrected error.

¶13

As per communication dated 4.6.2016, sent by the Divisional Controller to the Legal Section of the M.S.R.T.C, petitioner No.2 can be considered against the vacancy which has become available for “Special Backward Class” later on.

¶14

However, claim of petitioner No.1 is at Serial No.7 and hence, he cannot now be considered as available vacancies are only three.

¶15

In this situation, with direction to the respondents to consider entitlement and eligibility of

.....2/-

wp446.15

petitioner No.2 Pramod Motiram Gokhe, in accordance with law, we dispose of the petition.

¶20

The grievance of petitioner Shri Sagar Mohan Yelguntwar is kept open and he is given liberty to approach again, if any cause of action therefor arises.

JUDGE JUDGE

!! BRW !!

.....3/-

wp446.15

C E R T I F I C A T E

¶27

I certify that this Order/Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Order.

¶28

Uploaded by : Bhushan R.Wankhede. Uploaded on : -02/08/2016 (Personal Assistant)

¶29

...../-

Sagar S/O Mohan Yelguntwar and Another v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar S/O Mohan Yelguntwar and Another v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another

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

Sau. Rima Ravi Vaidya Vs the Collector, Bhandara and Others

Shri Shankarrao S/O Bhagwanji Vyawahare and 2 Others Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Dept. of Industries, Energy and Power and 3 Others

M/S Shushma Products, M.I.D.C. Nagpur, Thr. Its Director and Another Vs Vaishali Ramteke, Manager Bank of India Thr. Branch Manager, Nagpur and 2 Others

Shri Premdas S/O Hariram Lale Vs Zilla Parishad, Bhandara Throuhg Its Chief Executive Officer and Another

Chandrakant S/O. Gajanan Wani and Another Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing Division, Maha. State Office and Others

Ramesh S/O. Ramaji Botare Vs Shri Rajiv Ghatole Divisional Contoller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur