This thin order accepts the respondent's affidavit stating petitioner's pension and gratuity were paid and dismisses the writ petition without substantive reasoning.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
204wp2684.00.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.2684 of 2000
(Natthu Modkuji Kshirsagar .vs. The Municipal Council, Tumsar and Ors.)
______________________________________________________________________________Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders
Mr.Sumit Joshi, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.M.I.Dhatrak, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Ms R.V.Kalia, AGP for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI &
A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATE : 20.4.2017.
Heard.
In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent/Municipal Council, dt.8.8.2014, a categorical statement is made that the amount of pension and gratuity which is due to the petitioner as per the service record has been duly paid to the petitioner. There is nothing placed on record by the petitioner to dispute the said position.
Since the statement made by the Municipal Council is on the basis of Official record of the Municipal Council, there is no reason to dispute the same.
In that view of the matter, we find that the purpose of petition is served. The rule is, therefore, disposed of. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
jaiswal
JUDGE
Natthu Modkuji Kshirsagar
The Municipal Council, Tumsar
B.R. Gavai
A.S. Chandurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
