Quashed

Dr. Sushma W/O Dujendra Kumar Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC17 Sept 2018WP/4770/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court considered whether ad-hoc service rendered by a petitioner could be counted for seniority and pay after regularization. It quashed a communication denying benefits, directed the respondent to reconsider the matter in light of a 1999 Government Resolution, and set the next hearing date.

What did the court decide?

The communication dated 21.04.2018 and the impugned order dated 04.02.2017 were quashed and set aside.

Dr. Sushma W/O Dujendra Kumar Sharma Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

27WP4770.17

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

Writ Petition No. 4770/2017 (Dr. Sushma W/o Dujendra Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.)

¶5

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

¶6

Shri A. A. Naik, Advocate for petitiopner. Shri S. P. Deshpande, Addl. G. P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri P. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 4.

¶7

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND

¶8

M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.,

¶9

DATED : 17.09.2018.

¶10

The only question before this Court is whether the period of ad-hoc service put in by petitioner from 07.08.1987 till 23.02.2000 can be relied upon for calculating her seniority and pay fixation after she has been selected and joined as a regular/permanent Lecturer.

¶11

A communication dated 21.04.2018 filed as Annexure-I along with its reply by respondent No. 3 draws support from the Rule 33 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 to deny the benefit of that service.

¶12

Shri Naik, the learned Advocate for the petitioner is relying upon Government Resolution dated 06.03.1999 which entitles such incumbent to get benefit of ad-hoc service for the purpose of senior scale and selection grade.

¶13

The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that

¶14

27WP4770.17

¶15

¶16

as there is no challenge as yet to communication dated 21.04.2018, the defence of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in this respect is not on record.

¶17

Shri Patil, the learned Advocate for respondent No. 4 states that University has favourably recommended the case of the petitioner.

¶18

In the circumstances, we find that in the interest of justice, can be met with by directing the respondent No. 3 to reconsider the entire controversy in the wake of the Government Resolution dated 06.03.1999 and orders of this Court, if any, in this respect. Only to facilitate this exercise, we direct the petitioner as also the respondent No. 5 to appear before the respondent No. 3 on 09.10.2018. The respondent No. 3 shall thereafter within three months, take suitable decision as per law.

¶19

To enable such decision by the respondent No. 3, we quash and set aside the communication dated 21.04.2018, as also, the impugned order dated 04.02.2017.

¶20

8. Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

Gohane

Dr. Sushma W/O Dujendra Kumar Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Sushma W/O Dujendra Kumar Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mumbai and Others

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

Vinod Chintaman Gandhare and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Dept. of Urban Development, Mumbai and Others

Shri Raju S/O Harihar Barde Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary, Dept. of School Education and Sports, Mumbai and Others

Mr. Sujit S/O Devidasji Thamke Vs Union of India, through Its Secretary, Dept. of Electronic and Informration Technology, New Delhi

Bharat S/O Maganbhai Kheta and Others Vs Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur Thr. Chairman, Nagpur and Others

Harish S/O Mahadeosingh Raval Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Gayatri Wd/O Giridhar Thengri Vs Shri Ashim Gupta (Ias), Secretary, Rural Development Department, State of Maha., Mumbai and Others