Allowed

Dr. Vaishali D/O Harinarayan Badiye and Another v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary and Others

Bombay HC11 Jul 2018CAW/175/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondents to assign the workload of two contract posts to the petitioners on an hourly basis for the year 2018-19 after rejecting a contrary initial statement by the State's counsel.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to give work on an hourly basis to the petitioners for the year 2018-19.

Dr. Vaishali D/O Harinarayan Badiye and Another Vs… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 caw175.2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

CAW NO. 175/2018 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4381/2016

¶5

Dr. Vaishali D/o Harinarayan Badiye & anr.

¶6

..VS..

¶7

State of Maharashtra & ors.

¶8

¶9

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶10

Court's or Judge's orders

¶11

- - - - Shri M. Acharya, Special Council a/b Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, AGP for respondent/state

¶12

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND Z.A.HAQ, JJ. DATED : 11/07/2018

¶13

1] After hearing Advocate R.L. Khapre for applicants/petitioners and Advocate Acharya for respondent/State, question which cropped up is whether on ad-hoc basis during pendency of writ petition, work load of two posts to be filled in on contract basis can be assigned to applicants/petitioners. Shri Acharya upon instructions obtained in open Court informed that work load cannot be given to applicants/petitioners on contract basis but at this stage, he again informs after instructions that same can be given on hourly basis. We find that this explanation is coming after hearing Advocate Khapre, on record and after this Court started dictating the order in the light of earlier statement made in Court after obtaining instructions in Court. We mention this conduct on record because when hearing commenced, we openly pointed out to Shri Acharya our impression that respondents were not interested in assisting the Court in the matter.

¶14

2 caw175.2018

¶15

2] We accept the statement of Advocate Khapre that hourly basis arrangement made was only for the year 201718. Said arrangement for the year 2018-19 has still not been made. We therefore direct non-applicants/respondents to give work on hourly basis to applicants/petitioners.

¶16

3] The application is accordingly allowed and disposed of. No costs.

¶17

JUDGE JUDGE

¶18

Ansari

Dr. Vaishali D/O Harinarayan Badiye and Another v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Vaishali D/O Harinarayan Badiye and Another v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary 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

Abdul Rauf S/O Abdul Rashid Vs Zilla Parishad, Akola through Its Chief Executive Officer and Others

Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank Officers Association Thr. General Secr. R.G. Makhija S/O G. Makhija Vs Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank, Nagpur and Another

Surendra Namdeorao Gajbe Vs the Vice-Chairman/Member Sec. Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli and Anr.

Prof. Dr. Balchandra S/O Nattuji Khandekar Vs Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi and 3 Others

Shankar Gyandeo Sadawarti Vs the Shipping Corporation of India Ltd.Mumbai Thr. Its Chairman and Managing Director and Others

Shri. Sanghapal S/O Wasudeo Gorkhede Vs the Chief Officer Municipal Council Kamptee Nagpur