Disposed

Amol Narsinha Kondyal v. the Principal, Sambhajirao Shinde Prashala Handicap Unit (Secondary) and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Mar 2018WP/5769/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench disposed of a writ petition concerning eligibility for consequential benefits. The court directed respondents to examine the petitioner's case, considering a prior bench decision, and to either extend benefits or pass a reasoned order within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to examine petitioner's claim under prior order; extend benefits if eligible or pass reasoned order within two months.

Amol Narsinha Kondyal Vs the Principal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 7-wp-5769.16.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 5769 OF 2016

¶4

Amol Narsinha Kondyal … Petitioner Versus The Principal, Sambhajirao Shinde Prashala Handicap Unit (Secondary) and others … Respondents

¶5

Ms. Sanchita Thakur i/b A.S. Kulkarni for the Petitioner. Ms. K.R. Kulkarni AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Ms. S.V. Bharucha with M.S. Bharadwaj, A.A. Ansari for Respondent No.6.

¶6

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR AND M. S. KARNIK, JJ.

¶7

DATE : 12^th MARCH, 2018

¶8

P. C.:

¶9

. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the question involved in this petition is already covered in the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Khandu Nagnath Deokate Vs. The Principal, Sambhajirao Shinde Prashala Handicap Unit (Secondary) and others in Writ Petition No. 5768 of 2016 decided on 5^th December, 2017. It is also the case of the Petitioner

1 of 2

Shridhar Sutar

2 7-wp-5769.16.doc

that prior to that the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad Bench had also decided the similar issue in Writ Petition No. 1030 of 2016 decided on 25^th August, 2016.

¶15

Having regard to the aforesaid submission, we dispose of this petition by directing the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to examine the petitioner's case and in case the petitioner's claim is covered by the aforesaid order dated 5^th December, 2017 the consequential benefits be extended to the Petitioner. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. In case, the respondents conclude that the petitioner is not covered by the aforesaid order, then detail reasoned order be passed in the matter within the aforesaid period of two months and be communicated to the Petitioner.

¶16

With the aforesaid directions the petition is disposed of.

¶17

( M. S. KARNIK, J.) ( SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J. )

¶18

2 of 2

¶19

Shridhar Sutar

Amol Narsinha Kondyal v. the Principal, Sambhajirao Shinde Prashala Handicap Unit (Secondary) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amol Narsinha Kondyal v. the Principal, Sambhajirao Shinde Prashala Handicap Unit (Secondary) 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

Husainabai Abbasbhai Hakim Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Safah Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nuna Majhi, Cm-Mm and 2 Ors.

Pradeep Shamrao Sail and 22 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Shri. Shamsundar @ Sham Laxman Madwal Vs State of Maharashtra Thorugh Its Secretary and Ors.

Mr. Dhananjay D. Gavali and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pritipuja Kashinath Pandhare Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary and Anr.