Disposed

Shri. Dashrath Gangaram Patil v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Mar 2017WP/1584/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench permitted the petitioner to provide a representation to the State showing that his placement in the Seniority List was incorrect due to faulty data, directing the matter to be disposed of within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; the petition is treated as a representation to be decided within eight weeks.

Shri. Dashrath Gangaram Patil Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

ASWP1584.17.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1584 OF 2017

¶4

Shri Dashrath Gangaram Patil … Petitioner

¶5

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents

¶7

Mr. C.S. Joshi for the Petitioner.

¶8

Ms. Sushma S. Bhende, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 - State.

¶9

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.

¶10

THURSDAY, 09TH MARCH, 2017

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1 The petitioner, 53 years of age, has approached this

¶13

Court complaining that on account of the incorrect information provided by respondent Nos.3 and 4, the State Government, while preparing and drawing up the Seniority List, has not placed the petitioner properly. The petitioner complains that if the details

¶14

taken from his service record had been duly forwarded and considered, his placement in the Seniority List would not be at the serial number at which it is presently appearing.

¶15

SRP 1/3

¶16

ASWP1584.17.doc

¶17

2 After this writ petition was heard for some time, we enquired from the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State as to who prepares the Seniority List or finalises it. She concedes that it is the State through the concerned Department which would undertake and complete such process.

¶18

3 In the circumstances and not to cause any prejudice to the petitioner, we would permit the petitioner to avail of an opportunity and of demonstrating that his placement presently made is inaccurate, incorrect and contrary to the Rules and Regulations of seniority. The present writ petition, with all its annexures, be treated as the petitioner's representation against this Seniority List and drawn up by the State and such a representation of the petitioner be decided as expeditiously as possible and within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of its receipt in the concerned Department. We keep open all contentions as raised in the writ petition. In the event they are not addressed, it will be open for the petitioner to question the entire exercise of all the respondents and of denial of any promotions etc.

¶19

SRP 2/3

¶20

ASWP1584.17.doc

¶21

4 The writ petition presently need not be entertained. It

¶22

is disposed of with the above directions.

¶23

B.P. COLABAWALLA, J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶24

SRP 3/3

Shri. Dashrath Gangaram Patil v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Dashrath Gangaram Patil v. the State of Maharashtra through Its 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

Indian Airlines Karmachari Sangh Vs the Managing Director Air India Chrtrs Limited and 3 Ors.

Gahinath Dagadu Buge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mansing Shankar Bhoje Vs the Chief Secretary - General Administration Department and Ors.

Maheshkumar Chandrashekhar Dhage Vs the State of Maharashtra and 11 Ors.

Rajninath Shivram Chipkar Vs Mumbai Port Trust and 3 Ors.

Ajay Digambar Jadhav and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue Dept and Ors.