Disposed

Chandrashekhar Pandurang Holkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC15 Feb 2019WP/2133/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition, filed by a Junior Engineer belonging to the Mahadev Koli Scheduled Tribe, sought directions for the Scrutiny Committee to decide his claim expeditiously as his employment salary was withheld pending the validity certificate. The High Court disposed of the petition at the admission stage, directing the Committee to decide the claim within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the Scrutiny Committee to decide the petitioner's claim as expeditiously as possible, not later than twelve weeks.

Chandrashekhar Pandurang Holkar Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

wp2133.19

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2133 OF 2019

¶5

Chandrashekhar s/o Pandurang Holkar, Age : 25 years, Occu. Service, R/o Holkar Vasti, Shrigonda, Taluka Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar ..PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32

¶8

The Scheduled Tribes Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nasik Division, Nasik Through its Secretary

¶9

The Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply Department, Zilla Parishad, Bhandara, District Bhandara ..RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr H.P. Kshirsagar, Advocate, holding for Mr D.D. Chaudhari, Advocate for petitioner;

¶11

Mrs M.A. Deshpande, A.G.P. for respondent no.1

¶12

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 15^th February, 2019

¶14

ORAL ORDER:

¶15

Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶16

wp2133.19

¶17

(2)

¶18

A limited prayer is pressed in the petition. The petitioner prays for directions to respondent no.2 Scrutiny Committee to decide the claim of the petitioner.

¶19

It is submitted before us that the petitioner belongs to "Mahadev Koli" - Scheduled Tribes and was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the year 2016 by order dated 29th February, 2016 from the reserved category of Scheduled Tribes.

¶20

Respondent no.3 - Executive Engineer forwarded the claim to respondent no.2 Scrutiny Committee for validation. Copy of the forwarding letter dated 5th July, 2016 is placed on record at annexure C. Learned Counsel also invited our attention to the proforma claim accepted by the petitioner on 9th July, 2016. Learned Counsel then submits that due to pendency of the claim, the petitioner is suffering hardship as respondent, more particularly the employer is withholding the payment of salary on account of non submission of the validity certificate. Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the letter dated 24th August, 2017 placed on record at annexure D. Thus, the learned Counsel submits that the petitioner is desirous of early decision of the claim by the Committee.

¶21

wp2133.19

¶22

(3)

¶23

The aforesaid being a limited prayer, the petition is disposed of at the admission stage with directions to respondent no.2 Committee to decide the claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and not later than twelve weeks from the date of the order of this Court.

¶24

(S.M. GAVHANE, J.)

¶25

(PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

¶26

amj

Chandrashekhar Pandurang Holkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrashekhar Pandurang Holkar 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

Anita Babanrao Rao and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pathan Musaveer Khan Baktiyar Khan Vs Maharashtra University of Health Science Nashik Though Registrar and Others

Dushyant Harishchandra Mate Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through Its Chief Area Manager and Another

Sushma Rajesh Junagade and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shivam Ramlu Bukkawar through Ramlu Shankarrao Bukkawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Supriya Babanrao Totawar Under Guardian Babanrao Govindrao Totawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another