Disposed

Smt. Chaugule Savita Sajaykumar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Nov 2019WP/1405/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court declined to adjudicate entitlements to continuity of service and pension benefits, marking them for decision later. The writ petition and several related cases on the board were disposed of with an operative order extending to the connected writ petitions and civil applications, which accordingly ceased to survive. Quality: thin

What did the court decide?

The order in W.P. 1405 of 2013 operates as the order in seven other specified writ petitions and results in the disposal of Civil Applications 2551 and 2552.

Smt. Chaugule Savita Sajaykumar and Ors. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

suresh

¶2

25-WP-1405.2013+NoB.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1405 OF 2013

¶5

Smt. Chaugule Savita Sanjaykumar & Others .... Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others .... Respondents

¶6

Mr. R.B. Deshmukh for the Petitioners. Ms R.A. Salunkhe, AGP, for the Respondent-State.

¶7

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & R.I. CHAGLA, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 04, 2019

¶8

P.C:

¶9

Mr. Deshmukh fairly states that after the scheme came to an end, the petitioners have been absorbed in the services of Primary Schools in the concerned Districts.

¶10

Thus, they are not rendered jobless but are granted employment. Whether they are entitled to the benefit of continuity of service, retiral and pensionary benefits based thereon are matters which can be left for consideration at an appropriate stage in the career of these teachers. Keeping that issue and the controversy as a whole open for being decided as and when necessary and particularly when there is denial of these benefits, we dispose of this writ petition.

¶11

Page 1 of 2

¶12

suresh

¶13

25-WP-1405.2013+NoB.doc

¶14

In the light of the fair stand of Mr. Deshmukh, the order passed today shall operate as an order in the following Writ Petitions also but which are not on today’s board:-

¶15

“1) Civil Writ Petition No.2049 of 2012 With

¶16

Civil Application No.2552 of 2013 In

¶17

Civil Writ Petition No.2049 of 2012

¶18

1. Civil Writ Petition No.1101 of 2012

¶19

1. Civil Writ Petition No.3509 of 2013

¶20

1. Civil Writ Petition No.1737 of 2012 With

¶21

Civil Application No.2551 of 2013 In

¶22

Civil Writ Petition No.1737 of 2012

¶23

1. Civil Writ Petition No.1405 of 2013

¶24

1. Civil Writ Petition No.10107 of 2013

¶25

1. Civil Writ Petition No.4737 of 2013”

¶26

They are also disposed of.

¶27

In view of the above, Civil Application No.2551 of 2013 in Writ Petition No.1737 of 2012 and Civil Application No.2552 of 2013 in Writ Petition No.2049 of 2012 do not survive and they accordingly stand disposed of.

¶28

(R.I. CHAGLA, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶29

Page 2 of 2

Smt. Chaugule Savita Sajaykumar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chaugule Savita Sajaykumar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept 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

Balwant Mahadev Babar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Balwant Mahadev Babar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vinay Hukumchand Kothari Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Purva Siddharth Ingle Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Sanjay Pandurang Ghadigaonkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.