Partly allowed

Ashok S/O Bhimramji Vaidhya and Others v. the State of Maharashtra Dept. of School Education and Sports Dept. Mumbai Thr. Secretary and Other

Bombay HC6 Feb 2018WP/2980/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment applies the directions from a related writ petition (WP No. 6117/16) to the present petition, conditioning the petitioners' fate on the State Government's subsequent decision. The interim order favoring the petitioners is continued pending completion of the mentioned exercise.

What did the court decide?

Interim order continued pending completion of exercise; petitioners' fate subject to State Government decision as per related W.P. No. 6117/16.

Ashok S/O Bhimramji Vaidhya and Others Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

6.2WP.2980.16

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2980 OF 2016. (Ashok Baliramji Vaidhya & others .vs. The State of Maharashtra & others)

¶5

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

¶6

Mr. P.S. Kshirsagar, Advocate for petitioners, Mr. S.A. Ashirgade, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 & 2, Mr. N. Almelkar, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 & 4.

¶7

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 6, 2018.

¶8

1] Mr. P.S. Kshirsagar, learned Advocate for petitioners, submits that in identical challenge in Writ Petition No. 6117/16 on 19.1.2018 this Bench has directed State Government to hear petitioner Headmasters or their representative and to take suitable decision on their grievances within next three months.

¶9

2] He points out that in Writ Petition No. 6117/16 concerned Headmasters were already reverted while in present matter because of interim orders granted by this Court on 24.5.2016 petitioners are still continuing as Headmasters.

¶10

3] Mr. S.A. Ashirgade, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. N. Almelkar, learned Advocate for respondent nos. 3 & 4, submit that since interim orders are operating, the matter should be decided by this Court. Mr. N. Almelkar, learned Advocate is also seeking time to verify facts in Writ Petition No. 6117/16.

¶11

4] However, in this situation, as the issue pertains to policy and State Government has to decide policy for implementation on

¶12

6.2WP.2980.16

¶13

¶14

uniform basis, we find that interest of justice can be met by subjecting fate of present petitioners also to outcome of exercise as ordered in Writ Petition No. 6117/16.

¶15

5] Accordingly, we hold that directions contained in order dated 19.1.2018 shall also apply and hold good in present petition. Thus, petitioners or their representatives shall be heard and suitable decision shall be taken by State Government as already directed in order dated 19.1.2018 (supra).

¶16

6] However, here as petitioners are having interim order in their favour since 24.5.2016, we continue that interim order till completion of said exercise. However, it shall be subject to outcome of such exercise.

¶17

7] With these directions, we partly allow Writ Petition and dispose it of.

¶18

Judge Judge

¶19

Ashok S/O Bhimramji Vaidhya and Others v. the State of Maharashtra Dept. of School Education and Sports Dept. Mumbai Thr. Secretary and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok S/O Bhimramji Vaidhya and Others v. the State of Maharashtra Dept. of School Education and Sports Dept. Mumbai Thr. Secretary and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abaccus Computer System, through Its Proprietor, Shri Nitish S/O Madan Murari Singh and 2 Others Vs State of Maharashtra,through Its Secretary, Department of Marketing Textile and Co-Operation, Mumba

Kashinath S/O Dhondappa Bhusnoor Vs State of Maharashtr, Thr. Secretary to the Govt. of Maha, Revenue and Forest Dept. Mumbai and Other

Ku. Khushboo D/O Shyamrao Jagane (Smt. Khushboo W/O Ajay Barve) Vs Shri. C.L. Kalkundwar, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parihad, Gondia

Suresh S/O. Motiram Ninave Vs Western Coalfields Limited (a Govt. of India Undertaking) Thr. Senior Manager (Mining) Saoner and 2

Zilla Parishad, Nagpur Thr. Chief Executive Officer and Others Vs Gulab S/O Pandurang Talmale

Dharmaraj S/O Dinkar Lahole and Another Vs Shri. Prashant Digraskar, Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Akola and Another