Disposed

Rajeshwar Ganesh Panchal v. the Union of India, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jan 2017PIL/62/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court observed that the Central and State Governments have placed and revised compensation schemes for victims on record, enhancing amounts and adding protective measures. It held that there was compliance with previous directions and directed the petitioner to approach the Court individually if specific benefit was not received before closing the PIL.

What did the court decide?

PIL closed; no further general direction issued.

Rajeshwar Ganesh Panchal Vs the Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

PIL 62-2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 62 OF 2014

¶4

Rajeshwar Ganesh Panchal .. Petitioner V/s The Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents

¶5

The petitioner in person. Mr. R.V. Govilkar with Mr. N.R. Prajapati for Union of India. Mr. A.B. Vagyani, Government Pleader with Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the respondent – State.

¶6

CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ. & G.S. KULKARNI, J.

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

Learned counsel representing the Union of India places on record the revised guidelines as downloaded from the website, in terms of the instructions given in the letter of the Ministry.

¶9

We have gone through the directions dated 13^th August 2014, especially at para 22 of the order. Already State of Maharashtra has placed on record the information that the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶10

So far as the Central Government is concerned, the revised guidelines of Central Scheme for Assistance to Civilian

1 of 2

ABS

PIL 62-2014

Victims and the Family of Victims are placed on record today. As noticed from this Scheme, there is enhancement of compensation amount from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- from the Central funds. Apart from that, they have also revised the scheme by taking certain protective measures so far as the amount payable to the victims or the dependents of victims. They have also stated how the amounts have to be paid through cheques and how the money has to be kept in fixed deposit so that the money will not be wasted and would be used for the basic necessities of the victims or the family of victims, as the case may be.

¶15

According to us, there is compliance of directions at para 22 of the order dated 13^th August 2014. If any individual applicant is not given the benefit of either the scheme made by the State Government or the Central Government, he is at liberty to approach the Court for specific direction to implement the guidelines if the applicant is entitled for such benefit.

¶16

In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion nothing further needs to be directed in the matter and accordingly the PIL is closed.

¶17

(G.S. KULKARNI, J.)

¶18

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶19

2 of 2

¶20

ABS

Rajeshwar Ganesh Panchal v. the Union of India, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeshwar Ganesh Panchal v. the Union of India, through Chief Secretary 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

Adv. Ashish S/O Nandkishor Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Another

Mr. Maruti Sahebrao Bhapkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Shri. Dr. Subhanji S. Dhane Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Dr. Subhanji S. Dhane Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Suresh Bibhishan Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kakasaheb Damodhar Kakde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashutosh Rameshchandra Tiwari Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary of Chief Minister of Mah. and Ors.

The Advocates Bar Association of Maharashtra State Wakf Tribunal Aurangabad through Its President Vs Union Government of India through Its Chief Secretary New Delhi and Others

Tanuja Hemant Barge Vs Hemant Anandrao Barge

Mr. Maruti Sahebrao Bhapkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Mrs. Sangeeta Shrikant Pingale through C.A. Mr. Sandeep Prafulla Khedekar Vs Mr. Shrikant Shankar Pingale

Vishwasrao Sukhadeo Deokar Vs State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Vishwasrao Sukhadeo Deokar Vs State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Shri Sakharam Nana Patil (Decd) through Lr, Smt. Satyawati S. Patil Vs the Collector and Dy. Director for Rehabilitation, Kolhapur District and Ors.