Allowed

Chandrakant Umakantrao Hulsurkar v. the Commissioner of Handicap Welfare Maharashtra State Pune and Others

Bombay HC20 Aug 2018WP/6434/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition by a former employee sought rectification of a wrongful termination order and payment of outstanding salary. The High Court held the termination illegal, ordered the petitioner's absorption, and directed payment of dues for relevant periods by the statutory commission and respondent institutions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be absorbed; Respondents to pay salary for periods 01.06.2015 to 23.04.2017 and 30.09.2011 to 25.03.2012; period counted for continuity.

Chandrakant Umakantrao Hulsurkar Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(1)

¶2

14-wp-6434-2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

14 WRIT PETITION NO. 6434 OF 2015

¶5

CHANDRAKANT UMAKANTRAO HULSURKAR..PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE COMMISSIONER OF HANDICAP WELFARE MAHARASHTRA
STATE PUNE AND OTHERS..RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr. Milind M. Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. N. T. Bhagat, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. U. B. Bondar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr. N. E. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
Mr. U. R. Awate h/f. Mr. S. B. Talekar, Advocate
for the Respondent No.5.

¶9

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
 S. M. GAVHANE, JJ.

¶10

 DATED : 20th AUGUST, 2018.

¶11

PER COURT:-

¶12

1.The grievance of the petitioner with
regard to the absorption now stands redressed, as
the petitioner has been absorbed with another
institution.

¶13

2.The only question is with regard to the
payment of salary to the petitioner for the period
from 01.06.2015 till 23.04.2017 and for the period
from 30.09.2011 till 25.03.2012.

¶14

3.We have heard Mr. Joshi, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Mr. Bondar, learned counsel for
respondent no.2, Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for

¶15

(2) 14-wp-6434-2015

¶16

respondent no.4 and Mr. Awate, learned counsel for
respondent no.5.

¶17

4.It is not the matter of dispute that the
petitioner was initially declared surplus in the
year 2000, thereafter, the order of absorption was
passed in the year 2007. The petitioner was
allowed to join with respondent no.4 on 26.03.2012.

¶18

5.Thereafter, the petitioner was relieved by
respondent no.4 on 01.06.2015. Thereafter, the
present writ petition is filed by the petitioner
against the order relieving him from service.

¶19

6.During the pendency of this writ petition,
the respondent no.2 was directed to absorb the
petitioner, as prima facie it appeared to the Court
that, the order terminating service of the
petitioner was illegal. Pursuant thereto the order
of absorption of the petitioner is issued and the
petitioner is absorbed.

¶20

7.As far as the salary for the period from
30.09.2011 till 25.03.2012 is concerned, the
respondent no.4 shall submit salary bills to
respondent no.2. On receipt of the salary bills,
the respondent no.2 shall sanction the same and
release in favour of the petitioner.

¶21

8.As far as the period from 01.06.2015 till
23.04.2017 is concerned, the same is on account of

¶22

(3) 14-wp-6434-2015

¶23

the petitioner being relieved by respondent no.4.
The order relieving the petitioner from service by
respondent no.4 is certainly erroneous. The
petitioner was directed to be absorbed by
respondent no.4. The respondent no.4 on its own
volition could not have relieved the petitioner.
In fact, the same was to accommodate the respondent
no.5.

¶24

9.The Deputy Commissioner for Persons with
Disabilities had also filed an affidavit, thereby
putting blame on the respondent nos.4 and 2
equally. The respondent no.2 is also held liable
by the Deputy Commissioner in its act of
accommodating respondent no.5.

¶25

10.The Deputy Commissioner in its affidavit
has stated thus:

¶26

“10. It is further submitted that the
management has wrongly relieved the
Petitioner from his post and the
respondent no.2 has not applied its mind
properly at the time of decision dated
17.06.2015, while granting administrative
approval to the respondent no.5. The
decision of the management relieving the
petitioner and respondent no.2 to accord
the approval to respondent no.5 is may not
be justifiable and against principle of
natural justice and therefore, it may not
be sustainable.”

¶27

11.It appears that the petitioner was placed
in the list of surplus candidates in the year 2015,
but was not absorbed till the year 2017. Once

¶28

(4) 14-wp-6434-2015

¶29

having been placed in the list of surplus
candidates, naturally the petitioner would be
entitled for the continuity and the salary. In
view of that, for the period from 01.06.2015 till
23.4.2017, the petitioner shall also be paid the
salary by respondent nos.2 and 3. The said period
shall also be counted for the purpose of
continuity.

¶30

12.Writ Petition accordingly disposed of. No
costs.

¶31

Devendra/August-18

Chandrakant Umakantrao Hulsurkar v. the Commissioner of Handicap Welfare Maharashtra State Pune and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Umakantrao Hulsurkar v. the Commissioner of Handicap Welfare Maharashtra State Pune 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

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs Shirpur Education Society R C Patel College of Education through Its Principal D a Suryawanshi

The Joint Director of Higher Education Aurangabad Vs Meharsing Bhika Pawra and Others

Nagnath Govind Biradar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

M/S Shree Satpura Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Nandurbar. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vishakha Joshef Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vishal Joshef Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others