Dismissed

Satish Kisan Bhosale and Ors. v. the Union of India through the Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Oct 2018WP/4787/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay Appellate Side rejected a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's refusal to grant interim reinstatement of petitioners facing termination. The bench distinguished precedent applied only to final hearings.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; interim status quo ante denied; contentions on merits kept open.

Satish Kisan Bhosale and Ors. Vs the Union of India… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 wp-4787.17.doc

¶2

pmw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4787 OF 2017

¶5

Satish Kisan Bhosale and Ors. … Petitioners Vs. The Union of India and Ors. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Surendra Prakash Saxena for the Petitioners.

¶7

Mr. Neel Helekar a/w Mrs. Neeta V. Masurkar for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶8

CORAM : A.S.OKA AND M.S. SONAK, JJ. DATE : 1^st OCTOBER 2018.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1 The petitioners are the applicants in pending original applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The substantive challenge in the pending original applications is to the order of termination of the petitioners from the employment. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has declined to grant drastic interim relief of virtually granting reinstatement to the petitioners.

¶11

2 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Joginder Pal and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors .¹ . He relies upon the order dated 13^th July 2014 passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10513 of 2016 (Manu Tomar Vs. Union of India and Ors.) He submitted that in some other case, the Apex Court has granted relief of reinstatement with 50% back-wages.

¶12

1 (2014) 6 SCC 644

¶13

2 wp-4787.17.doc

¶14

3 The petitioners prayed for restoration of status-quo ante by way of interim relief in the original applications. The employment of the petitioners was terminated by the order dated 25^th November 2016. By the impugned order dated 23^rd December 2016, the learned Members of the Tribunal have declined to grant interim relief by holding that no prima facie case has been made out.

¶15

4 After having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, we find that no case is made out to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the Tribunal. Grant of status quo ante would have amounted to ordering the reinstatement of the petitioners in service at interim stage. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Manu Tomar is rendered at the time of final hearing of the Civil Appeal before the Apex Court. The same is the case in the case of Joginder Pal and Ors . Hence, no case is made out to interfere with the discretionary interim order passed by the Tribunal. Writ Petition is rejected. However, all contentions of the parties on merits of the pending original applications are kept open.

Satish Kisan Bhosale and Ors. v. the Union of India through the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kisan Bhosale and Ors. v. the Union of India through the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.C.Panigrahi Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Kuber Housing Investment and Finance Pvt. Vs Tci Finance Limited and 2 Ors.

R.E.Mulay Vs Union of India and Ors.

Airports Authority of India Vs Aercap Ireland Limited and 13 Ors.

Dasharath Rajaram Jadhav Vs Shivaji D. Patil and the New India Assurance Co.Ltd.

Suman Dinkar Dongre through Her Poa Holder Vs the State of Maharashtra Thorugh Secretary and Ors.