Allowed

Mangala Ashok Dunakhe v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Apr 2018WP/1913/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt-lite order notes the petitioner filed two representations regarding service benefits. The respondent authority failed to consider the 1992 Government Resolution. The respondent lawyer agreed to reconsider the proposals on merit.

What did the court decide?

The respondent authority is directed to reconsider the proposals within one month and decide on them afresh.

Mangala Ashok Dunakhe Vs the State of Mah and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

WP No. 1913/09

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

936 WRIT PETITION NO. 1913 OF 2009

¶5

MANGALA ASHOK DUNAKHE VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

¶7

Sr. Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. P.V. Mandlik AGP for Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. R.V. Dasalkar Advocate for Respondent 4 : Mr. Manoj Shinde h/f. Mr. Mukesh Goyanka Advocate for Respondent 5 : Mr. A.G. Talhar Advocate for Respondent 6 : Mr. A.G. Talhar

¶8

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND

¶9

SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ. DATED : April 25, 2018.

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

During arguments and in view of the fact that in the decision taken by the Deputy Director of Education, Nashik Division, there is no mention of Government Resolution of the State Government of the year 1992, the learned AGP made a statement for respondents that the authority will reconsider the representation of the petitioner.

¶12

There is copy of another representation dated 29.11.2017 which is addressed by the ex-employer of the petitioner to Education Officer. It appears that one more

¶13

WP No. 1913/09

¶14

¶15

representation is forwarded by the petitioner and in view of the statement made by the learned AGP, the previous representation and the present representation will be considered together, the previous representation which was forwarded as proposal dated 8.3.2007 and the present proposal dated 29.11.2017 are to be considered by the respondent authority within one month from today. Copy of circular dated 8.4.2008 is also produced to show that the policy mentioned in the Government Resolution of 1992 is reiterated in the circular and further clarified.

¶16

In view of the statement made by the learned AGP, the respondents are directed to reconsider the aforesaid two proposals afresh and take decision on it within one month from today. So, the order made by the authority on 26.3.2007 by which the representation of the petitioner was rejected stands set aside. The petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶17

Authenticated copy to both the sides is allowed.

¶18

[SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]

¶19

ssc/

Mangala Ashok Dunakhe v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangala Ashok Dunakhe v. the State of Mah and Ors.

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

Sushama Eknath Mahajan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Maharashtra Shikshan Prsarak Mandal Lakh and Anr. through Secretary Vs Laxman Maroti Turukmane and Ors.

The State of Mah Vs Sudhakar Sangram Kamble and Anr.

Ramrao Aantrao Deokar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Mah and Others Vs Ahmednagar Zilla Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj and Others

The State of Mah and Ors. Vs Ahmednagar Zilla Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj and Anr.