Dismissed

Umesh Baburao Thale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC19 Jan 2018RA/20/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad disposed of a review petition challenging a writ order that granted emoluments to the petitioner. The court noted that the underlying grant depended on a 2009 order that did not award backwages for the 2003-2009 period, finding no cause for interference. The review petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was dismissed with no costs.

Umesh Baburao Thale Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

( 1 ) revapln20.18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

REVIEW PETITION NO.20 OF 2018 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.11300 OF 2014

¶5

Umesh S/o. Baburao Thale

¶6

..Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra..Respondents
and others

¶9

Mr.K.F. Shingare, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.R.V.Dasalkar, AGP for the respondent/State

¶10

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED :19.01.2018

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

.The petitioner seeks review of the order dated
28.11.2017 thereby partly allowing the writ petition.

¶13

2.By the order under review we have held that the
petitioner is entitled for the emoluments from November-
2009 to February-2014. The same was considered up to the
February-2014 as the respondent has stated that the
petitioner is terminated.

¶14

3.The order of termination was not the subject
matter of the writ petition. It is for the petitioner to

¶15

( 2 ) revapln20.18

¶16

take whatever steps that are permissible in law.

¶17

4.As far as the grant of backwages is concerned
there was nothing before us to show that during the
period 2003 to October-2009, the petitioner has actually
worked we had relied on the the order of the Authority
passed in the year 2009 setting aside the termination of
the year 2003. The appellant authority had not given any
backwages and on that premise passed the order.

¶18

5.In view of the above, no case for interference
is made out. In view of above said review petition stands
disposed of. No costs.

¶19

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶20

VishalK/ revapln20.18

Umesh Baburao Thale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Baburao Thale v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Sunil Prabhakar Koli Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Authorised Officer Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Another Vs Shivshakti Kraft Board Mills Pvt. Ltd. through Its Managing Director and Others

Martha Devidas Rathod Vs Scheduled Caste Denotified Tribe through Its Member Secretary and Anothers

Vinayak Uttamrao Banchod Vs Maharashtra Public Service Commission through Its Deputy Secretary and Others

Krishna Sahebraoji Patil Dongaonkar and Ors. Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Indumati Tukaram Thorat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others