Disposed

Shri. Sudhir Vitthal Bansode v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Jun 2017WP/3784/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the suspension order passed against the petitioner, a Gram Sevak. The Division Bench directed the Chief Executive Officer to reconsider the case for revocation of the suspension order, considering the relevant Government Resolution and legal precedent, within four weeks, and disposed of the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Chief Executive to reconsider the petitioner's case for revocation of suspension within four weeks; petition disposed of.

Shri. Sudhir Vitthal Bansode Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

YBG

¶2

¶3

prod-as-514-wp-3784-17

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3784 OF 2017

¶6

Sudhir Vitthal Bansode .. Petitioner - Versus - State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents

¶7

Mr. A.M.Adagule for petitioner Ms. R.M.Shinde, AGP for respondent No.1 Mr. Yuvraj Gharat i/b. Vijay Killedar for respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M.S.SONAK, JJ. DATE : 20^th June 2017.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1] Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith.

¶11

2] The petition has been filed challenging the order dated 9^th November 2016 passed by the 3^rd respondent Chief Executive Officer, whereby the petitioner has been suspended from the post of Gram Sevak.

¶12

3] According to the petitioner, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hrishikesh Vasantrao Kumbhar Vs. Zilla Parishad, Sangli and Ors., reported in 2016(5) Mh.L.J. 554, the impugned suspension order is liable to be quashed.

¶13

YBG

¶14

¶15

prod-as-514-wp-3784-17

¶16

4] It is also the case of the petitioner that in view of the G.R.dated 14^th October 2014, the case of the petitioner requires to be reconsidered and appropriate decision in terms of the said Govt. Resolution is required to be taken.

¶17

5] Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, we are inclined to dispose of this petition by directing the Chief Executive to reconsider petitioner's case for revocation of suspension order in the light of G.R.dated 14^th October 2014 so also keeping in mind the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Hrishikesh (Supra).

¶18

6] Let the matter be reconsidered as aforesaid by the Chief Executive as expeditiously as possible but in no case later than four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶19

7] With these directions, the petition is disposed of.

¶20

8] Rule is made absolute.

¶21

(M.S.SONAK, J)

¶22

(SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J)

Shri. Sudhir Vitthal Bansode v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Sudhir Vitthal Bansode v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dashrath B. Rathod and 2 Ors. Vs Fox Star Studios India Private Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Dashrath B. Rathod and 2 Ors. Vs Fox Star Studios India Private Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Sharada Vasudeo Bhojane Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anita Fernandes and Anr. Vs Sonya Chikhalikar and Anr.

Smt. Aarti Ashok Rawate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vilas Aba Sagar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.