Disposed

Tushar Chandrakant Bhosale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC18 Dec 2017WP/14452/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a service matter, the High Court directed the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, to decide a pending proposal dated 16.9.2017 regarding the petitioner's reinstatement within six weeks, considering a Government Resolution, and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad to decide the pending proposal dated 16.9.2017 within six weeks on its own merits, considering the Court's order and the Government Resolution dated 17

Tushar Chandrakant Bhosale Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

|
Office Notes, Office|
|| |---|---| |Memoranda of Coram,||
Court's or Judge's orders| |appearances, Court's||| |orders or directions||| |and Registrar's orders||| |
WR|___________________________________
IT PETITION NO. 14452 OF 2017|

¶4

TUSHAR CHANDRAKANT BHOSALE VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr.Chapalgaonkar S.G. AGP for Respondent/State: Mr.R.V. Dasalkar.

¶7

...

¶8

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA & V.L. ACHLIYA,JJ.
Dated: DECEMBER,18, 2017

¶9

…
Mr.Chapalgaonkar, learned Advocate
submits that the petitioner was appointed
initially for a period of eleven months.
But, due to the orders passed by this
Court, all the persons, who were working
on the date when the order was passed by
the High Court, were directed to be
continued further. However, though the
petitioner was terminated on 28.2.2017,
he was continued and salary was also paid
till April, 2017. The learned Advocate
submits that now the Chief Executive
Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna has
representedtotheDivisional
Commissioner, Aurangabad for advice to
him whether he should take back the

¶10

14452.17wp

¶11

¶12

petitioner in service in view of the order
passed by the High Court. Though the said
proposal was sent on 16.9.2017 as yet no
decision has been taken.

¶13

2. We have heard learned AGP.

¶14

3.In case, the proposal dated 16.9.2017
(Exh.L) is pending with the Divisional
Commissioner,Aurangabadthenthe
Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad shall
take decision upon the said proposal
within six weeks, on its own merits. The
learned AGP shall communicate this order
totheDivisionalCommissioner,
Aurangabad. The Divisional Commissioner
shall consider the order passed by this
Court as well as the Government Resolution
dated 17th May, 2017.

¶15

4.Writ Petition is accordingly disposed
of. No costs.

¶16

(V.L.ACHLIYA,J) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J)

¶17

kadam/

Tushar Chandrakant Bhosale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tushar Chandrakant Bhosale 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Chief Executive Officer Zp Parbhani and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The Chief Executive Officer Zp Parbhani and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Registrar, Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krushi Vidyapith, Parbhani and Others Vs Abdul Sattar Abdul Razzak and Others

Anant Kishanrao Pidge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Karmsing Rupji Wasawe and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sakhubai Sakharam Patekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another