Disposed

Shamkant Rajaram Bhadlikar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC28 Sept 2018WP/5130/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This oral order disposed of a writ petition challenging communications regarding the revision of pay scale. The Court noted that the State Government had cancelled the impugned communications. Hence, the challenge did not survive. The Court permitted monetary claims to be approached via representation/application and directed authorities to decide them expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; authorities directed to decide any subsequent representation/application regarding monetary claims on merits expeditiously.

Shamkant Rajaram Bhadlikar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

5130.16wp

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5130 OF 2016

¶5

Dr. Shamkant Rajaram Bhadlikar, Age: 49 years, Occu: Service, R/o: “Shubhsanket”, Plot No.40, Prem Nagar, Pimprala Road, Jalgaon, Tal & Dist. Jalgaon

¶6

..PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400 032

¶9

Government of India, Through its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education, New Delhi

¶10

The University Grants Commission, Bahadurshah Jafar Marg, New Delhi – 110002 Through its Chairman

¶11

The Director of Higher Education Directorate of Higher Education, Central Building, Near Sasoon Hospital, Pune – 411001, Maharashtra State

¶12

The Joint Director, Higher Education Jalgaon Region, Jalgaon, First Floor, Jeevan Pradhikaran Bhavan, Near Collector Office, Jalgaon, Tal & Dist. Jalgaon

¶13

The North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon, Umavi Nagar, Jalgaon,

¶14

5130.16wp

¶15

(2)

¶16

Tal & Dist. Jalgaon, Through its Registrar ..RESPONDENTS

¶17

Mr S. V. Dixit, Advocate for petitioner; Mr A. R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1, 4 & 5 Mr S. B. Deshpande, ASGI for respondent Nos.2 & 3; Mr Y. B. Bolkar, Advocate for respondent No.6

¶18

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND

¶19

MANISH PITALE, JJ.

¶20

DATE : 28th September, 2018

¶21

ORAL ORDER:

¶22

Heard Mr Dixit, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5; learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and Mr Deshpande learned Asstt. Solicitor General appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶23

Mr Dixit, learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner was before this Court challenging the communications dated 20th May 2010 and 25th May, 2010. It was the issue raised by the petitioner in respect of revision of pay scale of the post of Deputy Registrar vide said communications.

¶24

Mr Dixit further submits that the petition was admitted and recently the communication is issued by the State of Maharashtra on 16th August, 2018. The said communication is also placed on record by Mr Dixit and

¶25

5130.16wp

¶26

(3)

¶27

same is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. Perusal of the said communication shows that in the opening part of the said communication itself, it is stated that the communications/letters dated 20th May 2010 and 25th May, 2010 are cancelled by the State Government. In view of this fact, Mr Dixit admits that the challenge raised in the petition does not survive. He then submits that insofar as monetary claims are concerned, the petitioner be permitted to approach respondents authorities by submitting appropriate representation/application and the authorities be directed to decide the representation/application submitted by the petitioner.

¶28

In view of aforesaid submission, if such representation/application is submitted by the petitioner for seeking monetary claims, the authorities to decide the said representation/application on its merits as well as the policy of the State Government and Central Government prevailing then and the academic qualification held by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.

¶29

With these directions, the petition is disposed of.

¶30

(MANISH PITALE, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

¶31

sjk

Shamkant Rajaram Bhadlikar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamkant Rajaram Bhadlikar v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Ajay Shantilal Lalwani Vs the Union of India and Others

Uttam Mariba Sonkamble Vs Dr Vandana Krishna Principal Secretary School Education Department and Another

Rajendra Harinarayan Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohd Jahedul Islam M a Majid Vs Gmidc, Aurangabad and Others

Anna Ramprasad Kulwant and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sujata Shivanand Gudgunti Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others