Allowed

Vimla Anil Kumar Puthran v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jun 2018WP/635/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner employee sought enforcement of a Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission order for one-time compensation unpaid by the State Government. After the State agreed to pay Rs. 75,000/- as additional compensation for delay, the court allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; order of the HR Commission enforced with additional compensation of Rs. 25,000/- totaling Rs. 75,000/- to be paid expeditiously to the petitioner.

Vimla Anil Kumar Puthran Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(901) wp-635.11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.635 OF 2011

¶3

Ms. Vimla Anil Kumar Puthran : Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra and anr. : Respondents.

¶4

Ms. Puja Acharekar i/by Mr. Shah Alam Khan for the Petitioner. Mrs. P P Shinde, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶5

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ. DATE : 08^th JUNE 2018

¶6

P.C.

¶7

1 As observed by us in our order dated 04/06/2018, this is an unfortunate case that though the order was passed by the Maharashtra State Human Rights commission directing payment of one time compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the Petitioner for her wrongful arrest and detention, the said order has not been complied with resulting in the Petitioner who is an employee of the Government of India being required to file the instant Writ Petition.

¶8

2 We had deferred the hearing of the above Writ Petition on 04/06/2018 so as to enable the learned APP Mrs. P P Shinde to obtain instructions in the above Writ Petition as to whether the State Government would honour the order passed by the Commission. We are glad to note that good sense seems to have ultimately prevailed upon the State Government inasmuch as a statement is made on behalf of the State Government by Shri J L

1 of 3

lgc

(901) wp-635.11

Pawara, Joint Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, who is personally present in Court, that the amount of Rs.50,000/- would be paid to the Petitioner. Since we had expressed our inclination to award interest on account of non-payment of the said amount of Rs.50,000/- from the year 2009, Shri J L Pawara, Joint Secretary, made a further statement that an amount of Rs.25,000/- would be paid in addition so as to make a total amount of Rs.75,000/-. Statement accepted. The learned APP further on instructions of Shri J L Pawara, Joint Secretary, and other officials of the Home Department makes a statement that the said amount of Rs.75,000/- would be paid expeditiously to the Petitioner. We accordingly direct the State Government to intimate the Petitioner at the address mentioned in the cause title of the above Writ Petition which is reproduced herein under for the sake of ready reference:-

¶13

“Ms. Vimla Anil Kumar Puthran, 202, Gahlot Complex, Sector 10, Phase II, Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400 706.”

¶14

After making payment of the said amount, the State Government is at liberty to follow the course of action which is mentioned in the second last paragraph of the order of the Commission dated 22/06/2009, if it so deems fit.

¶15

3 In the light of the said statement made by Shri J L Pawara, Joint Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, the grievance of the Petitioner does not survive. The above Writ Petition to accordingly stand

2 of 3

lgc

(901) wp-635.11

disposed of. Rule accordingly made absolute in terms of the said statement.

¶20

For compliance put up on 13/07/2018.

¶21

[REVATI MOHITE DERE, J]

¶22

[R.M.SAVANT, J]

¶23

3 of 3

¶24

lgc

Vimla Anil Kumar Puthran v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimla Anil Kumar Puthran v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Rajesh Pandurang Warlikar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohammed Aamir Humayun Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gopi Manjoji Rao and Ors. Vs Rakhee Rishi Punnilath and Ors.

Makarand Sajjan Savagaonkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sopan S/O Ramnath Kasar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish Bemtya Bhoir Vs the Divisional Commissioner Konkan Division and Ors.