Partly allowed

Dhaniram S/O Zingar Maharwade v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Deptt. Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC18 Jul 2018WP/2926/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the suspension order. Court declined writ intervention but directed respondent to pay full wages as subsistence allowance during the suspension period to enable participation in the inquiry, keeping other contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to pay arrears of full wages as subsistence allowance for the period of suspension till 30.06.2018.

Dhaniram S/O Zingar Maharwade Vs State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

1807wp2926.18

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2926 OF 2018

¶5

(Dhaniram s/o Zingar Maharwade vs. The State of Maharashtra thr. its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Ors.)

¶6

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

¶7

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & Z.A. HAQ, JJ. JULY 18, 2018.

¶8

Heard Shri I.N. Choudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. M.A. Barabde, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Shri A.S. Dhore, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

¶9

The petitioner challenges the order of suspension dated 10.05.2018. This Court has issued notice and the respondent – management has placed on record a Resolution dated 09.05.2018 by which it has authorized the Secretary to take necessary action against the petitioner.

¶10

Shri Choudhari, learned counsel submits that this resolution also is bad in law.

¶11

After hearing, we are not inclined to intervene in the matter in writ jurisdiction at this juncture. The counsel for the management has fairly stated that the arrears of wages payable to the petitioner during the period of suspension shall be made over to him by the management immediately. Though the petitioner claims that there is no previous approval of the department before ordering such suspension, even in the absence of such permission the

¶12

¶13

1807wp2926.18

¶14

employer can order suspension. If employer orders such suspension, the employee like the petitioner is entitled to full salary as subsistence allowance.

¶15

The inquiry has progressed and the petitioner is participating in it. He is cross examining the management witnesses. The inquiry is fixed today.

¶16

We, therefore, direct respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to arrange to pay to the petitioner arrears of his full wages for the period of suspension till 30.06.2018 before next date/ hearing in the Departmental Enquiry. If such payment is released, it is open to the petitioner to participate in the Departmental Enquiry. If the payment is not released, we grant the petitioner leave to approach again with appropriate grievance.

¶17

The other contentions about the validity of delegation of power to the Secretary and initiation of action by the Secretary or then role of Chairman/ President of the Trust in the matter are kept open and can be raised by the petitioner at appropriate juncture.

¶18

With these directions and observations, we partly allow the present petition and dispose it of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

JUDGE

¶20

JUDGE

¶21

*GS.

Dhaniram S/O Zingar Maharwade v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Deptt. Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhaniram S/O Zingar Maharwade v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Deptt. Mumbai 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

Sureshsingh S/O Pratapsingh Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Mumbai and 5 Others

Sau. Bharati W/O Rahul Rathi Vs the Akola Janata Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd. Thr. Its Authorized Officer and Others

Pankaj S/O Subhash Gawande Vs District Caste Scrutiny Committee No. 2, Akola Thr. Its Member/Secretary and Others

Shri Kawadu S/O Hariji Wanjari Vs Union of India through Its Secretary Irrigation Project and Road Department, New Delhi and Others

Maroti S/O Kishan Marbate and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Revenue Dept. Mumbai and Others

Mrs. Ghazala Reshma Wd/O Dr. Sayiduddin Quazi S/O Shamsuddin Quazi Vs Shri Vijay Satbir Singh, Secretary Public Health Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mumbai and 2 Ors.