Allowed

Mr. Anand Vijay Pawar v. Union of India, Ministry of Coal through Its Secretary and 2 Others

Bombay HC5 Oct 2018CAW/2176/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Nagpur Bench allowed a second application seeking an extension of time for the employer to decide on a compassionate employment application. The court extended the deadline by two months as a last chance, directing wage payments if a decision remains pending.

What did the court decide?

Extension of two months granted; direction to start paying petitioner wage in graduate engineer pay scale if decision not taken.

Mr. Anand Vijay Pawar Vs Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

Order

0510caw2176.18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

C.A.W.NO. 2176/2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1251/2014.

¶6

Anand Vijay Pawar - VERSUS-

¶7

Union of India and others.

¶8

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶9

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.

¶10

DATE : OCTOBER 05, 2018.

¶11

Heard Shri A.M. Ghare, learned Counsel

¶12

for the applicant/respondent nos. 2 and 3, Ms. Pathak,

¶13

learned Counsel for petitioner and Shri Brahme, learned counsel for respondent no.1.

¶14

This is 2^nd application by which the employer is seeking extension of 6 months to take decision as per orders of this Court dated 05.06.2017 disposing of Writ Petition No. 1251/2014.

¶15

Petitioner, holding Degree in Engineering seeks employment on compassionate ground on a post befitting his qualification. It appears that such

Order

0510caw2176.18

treatment has been extended to others in past. Interim directions issued on 18.11.2014 in Writ Petition No. 1251/2014 was questioned before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there the employer made a statement that the issue has been referred to J.B.C.C.I. Because of this development, Special Leave Petition was disposed of. This Court, thereafter disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to J.B.C.C.I. to take decision within 6 months. That decision which should have been taken by December, 2017, is still not reached. This Court had earlier extended time once. 4. Defence of employer is the provisions of Wage Agreement are understood in a particular manner by other employers, but, the present employer (WCL) has still not acted upon it accordingly.

¶20

We find that other employers who have acted upon the agreement between the parties, are subsidiaries of Coal India, so is the applicant WCL. 6. Learned counsel for applicant submits that when meeting was convened, representative of Trade Union did not cooperate and were absent.

¶21

We are not concerned with the difficulties as presented. Decision can be taken by those who are

Order

0510caw2176.18

present in the meeting.

¶26

We in this situation, extend time by two months more from today, as a last chance. If the decision is not taken, considering the qualification of petitioner, though respondents – WCL may not alter the nature of work, we direct it to start paying petitioner thereafter, the wage in the pay scale available to graduate engineer with it.

¶27

Civil Application is accordingly allowed and disposed of. No costs.

¶28

JUDGE JUDGE

¶29

Rgd.

Mr. Anand Vijay Pawar v. Union of India, Ministry of Coal through Its Secretary and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Anand Vijay Pawar v. Union of India, Ministry of Coal through Its Secretary and 2 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

Dinesh S/O Panjabrao Gawande and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Departmenty, Mumbai and Others

Pratik S/O Pramodrao Dhakade Vs Centralized Counselling for M. Tech Admission, Delhi through Vice Chairperson and Others

State Election Commission, Maharashtra through Its Commissioner, Mumbai Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mumbai and Others

Devidas Ramaji Tobare and Another Vs Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Akola

Arvind S/O Vasantrao Raut and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Dept. of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai and Others

Shri. Bandu Bhauji Sidam and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Dept. Mumbai and Another