Retired employees challenged recovery of excess payments from their gratuity without notice or hearing. The Court allowed all petitions and directed refund with 10% annual interest from recovery, payable within six months.
Refund of amounts deducted from gratuity, with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of recovery, within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp234419.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
(01) WRIT PETITION NO. 2344 of 2019
Vishwasrao s/o Manikrao Patil, Age 64 years, occ. retired, R/o Plot No.34, Gut No.134, Arjun Nagar, Jalgaon, Disttrict Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
WITH
(02) WRIT PETITION NO. 2345 OF 2019
Satish s/o Suklal Joshi
Age 58 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot no. 2, Meharun Mahajan Naga Jalgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
| {2} | wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|---|
| Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
||
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH (03) WRIT PETITION NO. 2346 O |
F 2019 | |
| Jahir Age 6 R/o Shiv |
oddin Kamroddhin Kazi 2 years, Occ. retired Plot No. 112, Usmaniya Park aji Nagar, Jalgaon |
|
| Dist. | Jalgaon | Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) |
{3}
wp234419.odt
Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents
WITH
(04) WRIT PETITION NO. 2347 OF 2019
Shamrao S/o Damu Surwade Age 65 years, occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 1, Gut No. 15 Shri Ratn Colony, Pimprala Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
WITH
(05) WRIT PETITION NO. 2348 OF 2019
Rajendra s/o Ramdas Patil (deceased through LR) Ratnabai w/o Rajendra Patil Age 49 years, Occ. housewife R/o Plot No. 3(1), Gut No. 115/1
wp234419.odt
{4}
Sai nagar, Nimkhedi, Tq. Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
| Versus | |
|---|---|
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| (06) WRIT PETITION NO. 2349 OF 2019 | |
| Ash Age R/o Jalg |
ok s/o Vishwnath Vankhede 59 years, occ. retired, Plot No. 38/D, Khote Nagar aon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner |
| Versus |
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|---|---|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| {5} | wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|---|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH (07) WRIT PETITION NO. 2350 |
OF 2019 | |
| Raje (dece Kalp Age R/o Pimp Dist. |
ndra S/o Pralhad Patil ased through LR) ana w/o Rajendra Patil 50 years, Occ. housewife Gut No. 191, Plot No. 4, rala, Jalgaon Jalgaon |
Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH (08) WRIT PETITION NO. 2351 |
OF 2019 |
{6}
wp234419.odt
Prakash S/o Limba Chavan Age 59 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 40, Bhagya Laxmi Nagar Pachora Tq. Pachora Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
WITH
(09) WRIT PETITION NO. 2352 OF 2019
Nilkanth S/o Bandu Mahajan Age 59 years, Occ. retired, R/o Vidya Nagar, Shivneri Chowk, Bhusawal High School road, Bhusawal Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
| {7} | wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH (10) WRIT PETITION NO. 2353 O |
F 2019 | |
| Prak Age R/o Shirs Dist. |
ash s/o Baban Athawale 64 years, Occ. retired, Plot No. 24, Neharu nagar oli Road, Jalgaon Jalgaon |
Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra |
|
| Mumbai 20 | Respondents |
{8}
wp234419.odt
WITH
(11) WRIT PETITION NO. 2354 OF 2019
Suresh S/o Vasant Kurkure Age 64 years, Occ. retired, R/o Vaghode Post at Salegaon Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
WITH
(12) WRIT PETITION NO. 2355 OF 2019
Haroonkhan Ayubkhan (deceased through LR) Sanjeedabi W/o Haroonkhan Pathan Age 50 years, Occ. housewife R/o Anandrao Colony, Near Patil Mala Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
| {9} | wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|---|
| Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
||
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH (13) WRIT PETITION NO. 2356 O |
F 2019 | |
| Kam Age R/o Jalg |
lakar S/o Lalu Kedare 58 years, Occ. retired, Plot No. 19, Juna Nimkhedi Highway aon, Dist. Jalgaon |
Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra |
wp234419.odt
{10}
Mumbai 20 Respondents
WITH
(14) WRIT PETITION NO. 2357 OF 2019
WITH
(15) WRIT PETITION NO. 2358 OF 2019
Narayan S/o Taniram Sonawane Age 59 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 3, J.D.C.C. Bank Colony Pimprala Road, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
wp234419.odt
{11}
Versus
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|---|---|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH (16) WRIT PETITION NO. 2359 OF 2019 |
Mujfarkha Lalkha Pathan (Deceased through LR) Shamimbanu w/o Mujfarkha Pathan Age 55 years, Occ. housewife R/o Plot no. 11, Shejawalkar Nagar Chalisgaon, Tq. Chalisgaon Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 2 Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai
| {12} | wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH (17) WRIT PETITION NO. 2360 |
OF 2019 | |
| Sudh Age 6 R/o Bhus Dist. |
akar S/o Gambhir Mansote 4 years, Occ. retired, Plot No. 33, Govind Colony awal, Tq. Bhusawal Jalgaon |
Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH | ||
| (18) WRIT PETITION NO. 2361 | OF 2019 |
Vijay S/o Suklal Suryawanshi
wp234419.odt
{13}
Age 60 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 18, Ajay Colony, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
{14} wp234419.odt
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|---|---|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH (20) WRIT PETITION NO. 2363 OF 2019 |
|
| Moh | mad Salim Esekhan Pathan |
| Age R/o High Tq. |
61 years, Occ. retired, House No. 1455, Rajanagar way No. 1, Bhusawal Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH (21) WRIT PETITION NO. 2364 OF 2019 |
{15}
wp234419.odt
Bhaskar S/o Nathu Patil Age 59 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 27, Samarth Nagar Pimprala Shivar, Jalgaon Dist.Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
WITH
(22) WRIT PETITION NO. 2365 OF 2019
Farooque Shaikh Bismilla Age 59 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 32, Near Roket Depo Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
| {16} | wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|---|
| Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
||
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH (23) WRIT PETITION NO. 2366 |
OF 2019 | |
| Sahe Age 6 R/o P Khote Dist. |
brao S/o Baburao Mali 1 years, occ. retired, lot No. 6, Ner Vatika Ashram Nagar, Jalgaon Jalgaon |
Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra |
|
| Mumbai 20 | Respondents |
{17}
wp234419.odt
WITH
(24) WRIT PETITION NO. 2367 OF 2019
Santosh s/o Manik Chaudhari Age 61 years, occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 8, Hiragauri Park Nimkhedi Shivar, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
WITH
(25) WRIT PETITION NO. 2368 OF 2019
Mukunda Damu Sonawane Age 66 years, Occ. retired, R/o Ashirwad Dream City, B16 Pachora, Tq. Pachora Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner Versus
{18} wp234419.odt
{19} wp234419.odt
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) | |
|---|---|---|
| Maharashtra | ||
| Mumbai 20 | Respondents |
WITH
| (27) WRIT PETITION NO. 2370 OF | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Yash Age 6 |
want S/o Kashinath Thorat 5 years, Occ. retired, |
|
| R/o Nimk Dist. |
Plot No. 64, Kolhe Nagar, hedi Shivar, Jalgaon Jalgaon |
Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
WITH
(28) WRIT PETITION NO. 2371 OF 2019
Dattatray S/o Pundlik Chaudhari Age 59 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 16/1, Nirmal Building Gurudatta Housing Society, Jalgaon
wp234419.odt
{20}
Dist. Jalgaon
Petitioner
| Versus | |
|---|---|
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH (29) WRIT PETITION NO. 2372 OF 2019 |
Prakash S/o PUndalik Baviskar Age 58 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 51/2, High way Darshan Colony Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|---|---|
| 2 | Director General of Police |
| Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police |
{21} wp234419.odt
Nasik Region, Nasik
Husanoddin S/o Nijamoddin Shaikh Age 59 years, Occ. retired,
wp234419.odt
{22}
R/o Behind Dr. Sharad Zope Hospital Khadaka Road, Bhusawal Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon
Petitioner
| Versus | |
|---|---|
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH (32) WRIT PETITION NO. 2375 OF 2019 |
|
| Vish Age 5 R/o Amal |
nu S/o Digambar Beldar<br>9 years, Occ. retired, Plot No. 12, Keshav nagar ner, Tq. Amalner |
| Dist. | Jalgaon Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, |
wp234419.odt
{23}
Mumbai
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|---|---|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH (33) WRIT PETITION NO. 2376 OF 2019 |
|
| Murl Age 6 R/o Sanji Chop Dist. |
idhar S/o Fakira Patil 3 years, Occ. retired, Plot No. 10 A, vani Nagar, Yawal Road da, Tq. Chopda, Aurangabad Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra |
| Mumbai 20 Respondents |
wp234419.odt
{24}
WITH
(34) WRIT PETITION NO. 2377 OF 2019
WITH
(35) WRIT PETITION NO. 2378 OF 2019
Subhash S/o Madhav Patil Age 62 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 16, Om Sai Nagar Chopda Tq. Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner Versus
{25} wp234419.odt
| {26} | wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH (37) WRIT PETITION NO. 2380 OF |
2019 | |
| Man Age R/o Dist. |
ohar S/o Baburao Jadhav 65 years, occ. retired, Pahur Peth, Tq. Jamner Jalgaon |
Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH (38) WRIT PETITION NO. 2381 OF |
2019 | |
| Akba Age R/o |
r Abdulla Khan 58 years, Occ. retired, Plot No. 75, Aqsa Nagar |
|
| Meh | run Jalgaon | |
| Dist. | Jalgaon | Petitioner |
| Versus |
| {27} wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH (39) WRIT PETITION NO. 2382 OF 2019 |
|
| Man | ohar S/o Chunilal Sonawane |
| Age R/o |
63 years, Occ. retired, Plot No. 4, Mukhavati Colony |
| Jam Dist. |
ner, Tq. Jamner Jalgaon Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police |
wp234419.odt
{28}
| Jalgaon | |
|---|---|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH (40) WRIT PETITION NO. 2383 OF 2019 |
|
| Shau Age 6 R/o Amal Dist. |
kat Ali Samad Ali Sayyed 0 years, Occ. retired, Plot No. 43, Japan Jin Istema Nagar ner, Tq. Amalner Jalgaon Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
WITH
(41) WRIT PETITION NO. 2384 OF 2019
Ratnakar S/o Shivaji Tayade Age 67 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 52/B, VIP Colony Bhusawal, Tq. Bhuswal
wp234419.odt
{29}
Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
| Versus | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
WITH (42) WRIT PETITION NO. 2385 OF 2019
Nathu S/o Tukaram Salunkhe Age 63 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 71, Mohan Nagar Mahabal Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
| {30} wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH (43) WRIT PETITION NO. 2386 OF 2019 |
|
| Diga Age 6 R/o Impr Dist. |
mbar Ramdas Sapkale 3 years, Occ. retired, Plot No. 36, Ganpati nagar ala Jalgaon Jalgaon Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH (44) WRIT PETITION NO. 2387 OF 2019 |
{31}
wp234419.odt
Ronak Ali Sayyad Hasan Age 64 years, occ. retired, R/o Ansar Ulla Nagar Khadaka Road Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
WITH (45) WRIT PETITION NO. 2388 OF 2019
Vasudev S/o Atmaram Chaudhari Age 58 years, Occ. retired, R/o Dipsagar Building, Near vedimata Temple Khilwadi, Bhusawal Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon
Petitioner
Versus
| {32} | wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|---|
| Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
||
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH (46) WRIT PETITION NO. 2389 |
OF 2019 | |
| Sunil Age 5 R/o P Visha Dist. |
S/o Prabhakar Deshpande 8 years Occ. retired, lot No. 15, Wagh Nagar l Colony, Jalgaon Jalgaon |
Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra |
|
| Mumbai 20 | Respondents |
wp234419.odt
{33}
WITH
(47) WRIT PETITION NO. 2390 OF 2019
Damu S/o Nago Chavan
Age 61 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 27, Asha Baba Nagar Pimprala, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
WITH
(48) WRIT PETITION NO. 2391 OF 2019
Rohidas S/o Natthu Pandav Age 60 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 18, Malhar Colony Faijpur, Tq. Yawal Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
| {34} | wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH (49) WRIT PETITION NO. 2392 O |
F 2019 | |
| Kes Age R/o Paro |
hav S/o Shamrao Patil 64 years, Occ. retired, Plot No. 41, Mahavir Nagar la, Tq. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon |
Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police |
{35} wp234419.odt Jalgaon 5 Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents WITH (50) WRIT PETITION NO. 2393 OF 2019 Ashok S/o Kalu More (Deceased through LR) Ushabai w/o Ashok More Age 55 years, Occ. housewife R/o Plot No. 19/01 Girna Panpig Road Datta Society Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 2 Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai 3 Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik 4 Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon 5 Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents WITH (51) WRIT PETITION NO. 2394 OF 2019
Chandrakant S/o Laxman Sutar Age 60 years, Occ. retired,
wp234419.odt
{36}
R/o Plot No. 76, Dr. Zakiir Husain Colony Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon
Petitioner
| Versus | |
|---|---|
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH (52) WRIT PETITION NO. 2395 OF 2019 |
Asifali Sarwarali Sayed Age 61 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 1910, Shivaji Nagar Near Barkat Majid, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 2 Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai
{37} wp234419.odt
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|---|---|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH (53) WRIT PETITION NO. 2396 OF 2019 |
|
| Sk. Age R/o Mah Jalg |
Munaf Sk. Amir Taboli 59 years, Occ. retired, Plot No. 28(A) Gut No. 201 ek Manjil (Mehrun) aon, Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra |
| Mumbai 20 Respondents |
{38}
wp234419.odt
WITH
(54) WRIT PETITION NO. 2397 OF 2019
Gulamnabi Shekh Husen
Age 59 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot no. 82, Talele Colony Bhusawal, Tq Bhusawal Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
WITH
(55) WRIT PETITION NO. 2398 OF 2019
Suresh S/o Jagannath Sonar age 64 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 254/5/2 Laxmi Nagar Meharun Tq. Jalgaon, Dist. Petitioner
Versus
| {39} | wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|---|
| Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. | ||
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH (56) WRIT PETITION NO. 2399 O |
F 2019 | |
| Kish Age R/o Nim |
or S/o Haridas Bairagi 59 years, occ. retired Plot No. 42, Gut No. 94 khedi Shivar |
|
| Gha Jalg |
nsham Nagar aon, Dist. Jalgaon |
Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
WITH
(57) WRIT PETITION NO. 2400 OF 2019
WITH
(58) WRIT PETITION NO. 2401 OF 2019
Subhash S/o Jagannath Shinde age 63 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 2, Ayodhya Nagar Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal
wp234419.odt
{41}
Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
WITH
(59) WRIT PETITION NO. 2402 OF 2019
Gaffar s/o Haider Shaikh
Age 59 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 64, Usmania Park Shvajinagar Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
| {42} wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH (60) WRIT PETITION NO. 2403 OF 2019 |
|
| Arun Age 5 R/o P Near Police Tq. & |
S/o Wamanrao Patil 8 years, Occ. retired, lot No. 40 to 42/2, Omkar Chandu Anna Nagar, Colony, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra |
| Mumbai 20 Respondents |
WITH
(61) WRIT PETITION NO. 2404 OF 2019
{43} wp234419.odt
Balasaheb S/o Nathu Patil Age 60 years, Occ. retired, R/o Kakdane Tq. Chalisgaon Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
| {44} wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|
| Mumbai | |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH (63) WRIT PETITION NO. 2406 OF 2019 |
|
| Vasa Age R/o Jalg |
nt S/o Kisan Kedare 61 years, occ. retired, Plot No. 8, Wagh Nagar (Jijau Nagar) aon, Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra |
| Mumbai 20 Respondents |
WITH
{45}
wp234419.odt
(64) WRIT PETITION NO. 2407 OF 2019
Mohammed Iqbal Shaikh Husain Age 65 years, Oc. retired, R/o Plot No. 76/A, SAlar Nagar Near Ajanta Chowk, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
WITH
(65) WRIT PETITION NO. 2408 OF 2019
Ashok S/o Kisan Sonwane Age 61 years, Occ. retired, R/o Kedarnath Housing Society Dadawadi, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
| {46} | wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|---|
| Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. | ||
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH (66) WRIT PETITION NO. 2409 O |
F 2019 | |
| Lalit Age R/o |
kumar S/o Supdu Jawale 59 years, Occ. retired Plot No. 19 |
|
| Shri | Colony, Muktainagar | |
| Dist. | Jalgaon | Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) |
{47}
wp234419.odt
Maharashtra Mumbai 20
Respondents
WITH
(67) WRIT PETITION NO. 2410 OF 2019
Prakash S/o Ananda Shimpi Age 62 years, Occ. retired R/o Plot no. 14, Gut No.187/1 Central Bank Colony, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
WITH
(68) WRIT PETITION NO. 2411 OF 2019
Pandharinath S/o Kashinath Patil Age 62 years, Occ. retired R/o Plot No. 34/4, Gut no. 343 Inranil Society, Khote Nagar Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
| {48} wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH (69) WRIT PETITION NO. 2412 OF 2019 |
|
| Ravi Age 6 R/o Amal Dist. |
ndra S/o Laxman Deshmukh 3 years, Occ. retired Plot No. 20, Anand Nagar ner, Tq. Amalner<br>Jalgaon Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| {49} | wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|---|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH (70) WRIT PETITION NO. 2413 OF |
2019 | |
| Punjd (Dece Chan |
lik S/o Daulat Nhavi ased through LRs) drakala W/o Pundlik Nhavi |
|
| Age 5 R/o G Jijau Dist. |
8 years, Occ. housewife ut No. 166, Plot No. 10 Nagar, Jalgaon Jalgaon |
Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH (71) WRIT PETITION NO. 2414 OF |
2019 |
Naushadali Johurali Kazi Age 62 years, Occ. retired,
wp234419.odt
{50}
R/o Plot No. 43 A Salar Nagar Near Ajitha Chowfully Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
| Versus | |
|---|---|
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH (72) WRIT PETITION NO. 2415 OF 2019 |
Waman S/o Purushottam Satodkar Age 65 years, Occ. retired, R/o 14 B, Mohan Nagar, Near Samarth Society, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 2 Director General of Police
| {51} wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|
| Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH (73) WRIT PETITION NO. 2416 OF 2019 |
|
| Sk. N Age R/o Alim Shiv Dist. |
asir Sk. Budhan 60 years, Occ. retired Plot No. 17, Survey No. 416 iya Nadvi Nagar aji Nagar, Jalgaon Jalgaon Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra |
| Mumbai 20 Respondents |
wp234419.odt
{52}
WITH
(74) WRIT PETITION NO. 2417 OF 2019
| Prak | ash S/o Bhaskar Chaudhari | |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 60 years, Occ. retired | |
| R/o 12, |
Sahakar Nagar, Sadhyadri Apartment Bhusawal |
|
| Dist | . Jalgaon | Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
WITH (75) WRIT PETITION NO. 2418 OF 2019 Subhash S/o Laxman Todkar Age 64 years, occ. retired R/o Plot No. 2, Gut No.141 Rukhmani Nagar, Jalgaon,Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra
{53} wp234419.odt
wp234419.odt
{54}
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) | |
|---|---|---|
| Maharashtra | ||
| Mumbai 20 | Respondents |
WITH (77) WRIT PETITION NO. 2420 OF 2019
Pundlik Baburao Mali Age 63 years Occ. retired, R/o Plot no. 116, Yashwant Nagar Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
| {55} | wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH (79) WRIT PETITION NO. 2425 OF |
2019 | |
| Arun | S/o Gulab Shinde | |
| Age R/o Nivru Dist. |
59 years, occ. Retired Plot No. 12, Gut no. 25 tti Nagar,Jalgaon Jalgaon |
Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police |
{56} wp234419.odt Jalgaon 5 Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents
| WITH (80) WRIT PETITION NO. 2426 OF |
2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Datt Age R/o Muk Dist. |
atray S/o Raybhan Patil 61 years, Occ. retired Plot No. 14, Gut No. 33 tai Nagar, Jalgaon Jalgaon |
Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
WITH
(81) WRIT PETITION NO. 2427 OF 2019
Shenphadu S/o Pundlik Chavan Age 62 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 1/52, Khote Nagar
wp234419.odt
{57}
Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|---|---|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH | |
| (82) WRIT PETITION NO. 2428 OF 2019 |
Kiran S/o Govind Patil Age 62 years, Occ. retired R/o 4/5, Gut No. 106 Mayur Co-opp. Housing Society Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
| {58} wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|
| Nasik Region, Nasik | |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH (83) WRIT PETITION NO. 2429 OF 2019 |
|
| Chin | taman S/o Vitthal Patil |
| Age 5 R/o Indra Jalga |
9 years, Occ. retired, 10, Gut No. 344 nil Society, on, Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH (84) WRIT PETITION NO. 2430 OF 2019 |
Dattu S/o Govind Jadhav Age 62 years, Occ. Retired
{59} wp234419.odt R/0 6/E, Gut No. 95/3/1 Khote Nagar, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|---|---|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH | |
| (85) WRIT PETITION NO. 2433 OF 2019 |
Vijaysing S/o Mohansing Patil Age 67 years, Occ. retired R/o Plot No. 19, Maroti Park Shiv Colony, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner Versus
{60} wp234419.odt
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
|---|---|---|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH (86) WRIT PETITION NO. 2434 OF |
2019 | |
| Ram Age R/o Sind Jalg |
esh Abhiman Chaudahri 66 years, Occ. retired Plot No. 2, Opp Nayvada Kalanbhavan hi Colony Road, aon, Dist. Jalgaon |
Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH (87) WRIT PETITION NO.2435 OF |
2019 |
{61}
wp234419.odt
Mahebub Rasal Tadvi Age 65 years, Occ. retired R/o 31/1/2 Gut no.766 Shriji Housing Society Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon
Petitioner
Versus
Narendra S/o Udaysing Solanki Age 61 years, Occ. retired R/o Gut No. 106/1, Plot no. 3 Mayur Gruh Nirman Society Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner Versus
| {62} | wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH (89) WRIT PETITION NO. 2437 |
OF 2019 | |
| Jard Age R/o Aklu Dist |
ar S/o Sardar Tadvi 63 years, Occ. retired, Plot no. 65, Sai Colony j,Tq. Yawal . Jalgaon |
Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra |
|
| Mumbai 20 | Respondents |
{63}
wp234419.odt
WITH
(90) WRIT PETITION NO. 2438 OF 2019
Vithal S/o Natthu Zambare Age 64 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 26, Vidhya Nagar Erandol, Tq. Erandol Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
WITH
(91) WRIT PETITION NO. 2439 OF 2019
Dagdu S/o Bhadu Sapkale
Age 63 years, Occ. retired R/o 15, Samarth Nagar, Gut no. 5/1 Pimprala, Jalgaon Dist.Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
wp234419.odt
{64}
WITH
(92) WRIT PETITION NO.2440 OF 2019
Pandit S/o Uttam Bhavsar age 64 years, Occ. retired R/o 10, Indranil Society, Near Yeshodip Kirana Pimprala Shivar, Jalgaon Petitioner Versus
{65}
| wp234419.odt | ||
|---|---|---|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
WITH
(93) WRIT PETITION NO. 2441 OF 2019
| Ratn | akar S/o Eknath Zambre | |
|---|---|---|
| age 6 R/o |
0 years, Occ. retired, 14, Gut No. 54, |
|
| Shiv | Colony, Jalgaon | |
| Dist. | Jalgaon | Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
WITH
(94) WRIT PETITION NO. 2482 OF 2019
{66}
wp234419.odt
Ratan S/o Baban Athavale age 59 years, Occ. retired, R/o Gut No. 412/2, Plot No. 34 Neharu Nagar, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
WITH
(95) WRIT PETITION NO. 2483 OF 2019
Chandrakumar S/o Shankar Ragade Age 61 years, Occ. retired, R/o Gut No. 766/2/2B, Plot No 27, Jijau Nagar, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner Versus
| {67} wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH (96) WRIT PETITION NO. 2484 OF 2019 |
Suresh S/o Bhadu Chaudhari Age 57 years, occ. retired, R/o Plot no. 55, Gut No. 19 Shivdham Colony, Tq. Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
wp234419.odt
{68}
Mumbai 20
Respondents
WITH
(97) WRIT PETITION NO. 2485 OF 2019
Shantaram S/o Kisan Patil Age 60 years, Occ. retired R/o Gut No. 94/1 Plot No. 20 Swami Samarth Society Jalgaon. Dist.Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
WITH
(98) WRIT PETITION NO. 2486 OF 2019
Ramrao S/o Shrawan Patil Age 59 years, Occ. retired R/o Gut No. 89, Plot No. 6(A), Dadawadi, Jalgaon
wp234419.odt
{69}
Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
| Versus | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
WITH (99) WRIT PETITION NO. 2487 OF 2019
| Rag Age R/o |
hunath S/o Baburao Shimpi 65 years, Occ. retired Plot No. 56/1/3, Gayatri Nagar |
|
|---|---|---|
| Jalg | aon, Dist. Jalgaon | Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police |
wp234419.odt
{70}
Nasik Region, Nasik
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH (100) WRIT PETITION NO. 2488 OF 2019 |
|
|---|---|
| Bha |
gwat S/o Sona Bharsake |
| Age R/o Gop Jalg |
65 years, Occ. retired, Gut No. 316/1, Plot No. 12, al Police Society, aon, Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
WITH
{71}
wp234419.odt
(101) WRIT PETITION NO. 2489 OF 2019
Nandkumar S/o Ramchandra Mahendre
Age 59 years, occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 51, Sant Mirabai Nagar Pimprala, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
WITH
(102) WRIT PETITION NO. 2490 OF 2019
Suresh S/o Madhavrao Patil Age 60 years, occ. retired R/o Got No. 191/5, Sidhivinayak Colony Pimprala, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
wp234419.odt
{72}
| Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. | |
|---|---|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH (103) WRIT PETITION NO. 2491 OF 2019 |
|
| Balir Age 6 R/o Utta Dist. |
am S/o Dayaram Mali 6 years, occ. retired Gut No. 122/2, Plot no. 12 m Nagar, Jalgaon Jalgaon Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
{73}
wp234419.odt
WITH
(104) WRIT PETITION NO. 2492 OF 2019
Kumudini W/o Ramesh Sananse Age 61 years, Occ. retired R/o Ordence Factory,Varangaon Tq. Bhusawal, Dist.Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
WITH
(105) WRIT PETITION NO. 2493 OF 2019
Dhanraj Jagannath Talele
Age 60 years, Occ. Retired R/o Plot No. 5, Makarand Nagar Near Ganpati Mandir, Varangaon
wp234419.odt
{74}
Tq. Varangaon, Dist. Jalgaon
Petitioner
Versus
WITH
(106) WRIT PETITION NO. 2494 OF 2019
Mustakali S/o Shabbirali Sayyed Age 61 years, Occ. retired R/o Plot No. 2, Suprim Colony Near Mamta Bekari, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon
Petitioner
Versus
{75} wp234419.odt
WITH (107) WRIT PETITION NO.2495 OF 2019
Arun Amrut Mahajan (Deceased through LR) Lata W/o Arun Mahajan Age 57 years, Occ. housewife R/o Plot No. 21, Bhagyashree Vihar Bhirud Colony, Bhusawal Tq. Bhusawal Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
wp234419.odt
{76}
WITH
(108) WRIT PETITION NO. 2496 OF 2019
Prakash S/o Ramdas Narkhede Age 61 years, Occ. retired R/o Plot No. 4, Indraprast Nagar Shivaji Nagar, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
WITH
(109) WRIT PETITION NO. 2497 OF 2019
Kadarsha Rahemansha Fakir Age 65 years, Occ. retired, R/o Gut No. 418, Plot No. 117(A) Shivaji Nagar, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
| {77} | wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH (110) WRIT PETITION NO.2498 O |
F 2019 | |
| Ram Age R/o Dist. |
esh Kashinath Shimpi 65 years, Occ. retired Mamurabad, Tq. Jalgaon Jalgaon |
Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police |
wp234419.odt
{78}
Jalgaon
WITH
(111) WRIT PETITION NO. 2499 OF 2019
Ashok Saherao Salunke
WITH
(112) WRIT PETITION NO. 2500 OF 2019
Sopan Vikram Nomone (Thakur) Age 60 years, Occ. retired
wp234419.odt
{79}
R/o Plot No. 4, Gut No. 186/1/3 Siddhi Vinayak Nagar Savkheda Shivar Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon
Petitioner
Versus
WITH
(113) WRIT PETITION NO. 2501 OF 2019
Gokul Ramchandra Patil Age 59 years, Occ. retired R/o 14, Surbhi Colony, Gut No.1401 Amalner Tq. Amalner Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
wp234419.odt
{80}
Maharashtra State, Mumbai
WITH
(114) WRIT PETITION NO. 2502 OF 2019
Raheman Kha Kasam Kha Pathan Age 59 years, Occ.retired R/o 32, Servey No. 346/3A Behind Shivaji Nagar, Mugal Guard, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
wp234419.odt
{81}
Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents
WITH
(115) WRIT PETITION NO. 2503 OF 2019
Madhukar Ananda Varade
Age 65 years, Occ. retired R/o Gut No. 4/2/1, Plot No. 17, Shinde Nagar, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner Versus
WITH
(116) WRIT PETITION NO. 2504 OF 2019
Shamlal Mayku Narekar Age 66 years, Occ. retired R/o Gut No. 343/3 Plot No. 17 Pimprale Shivar Indranil Society, Jalgaon
wp234419.odt
{82}
Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
WITH
(117) WRIT PETITION NO. 2505 OF 2019
Shaikh Rashid Abdul Wahed Age 61 years, Occ retired R/o Anandrao Colony, Patil Mala, Bhusawal Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner Versus
| {83} | wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH (118) WRIT PETITION NO. 2506 O |
F 2019 | |
| Udes Age R/o Mag Ram Jalg |
ing Ananda More 60 years, Occ. retired Plot No. 5, Gut No. 274(B) alpuri Baba Nagar eshwar Colony (Mehrun) aon, Dist. Jalgaon |
Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra |
|
| Mumbai 20 | Respondents |
WITH
(119) WRIT PETITION NO. 2507 OF 2019
wp234419.odt
{84}
Madhukar Girdhar Dhangar Age 65 years, occ. retired, R/o 6(1) Mayur Housing Society Khote Nagar, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon
Petitioner
| Versus | |
|---|---|
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH (120) WRIT PETITION NO. 2508 OF 2019 |
Baban Rasul Tadvi Age 59, occ. retired R/o Wagh Nagar, Gut No. 150/2, Plot No. 13, Shriram Chowk Guru Chowk Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
wp234419.odt
{85}
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|---|---|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH (121) WRIT PETITION NO. 2509 OF 2019 |
|
| Asho Age R/o Prim Dist. |
k Eknath Dusane 59 years, occ. retired 90, Aanandban Colony prala, Jalgaon Jalgaon Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra |
wp234419.odt
{86}
Mumbai 20
Respondents
WITH
(122) WRIT PETITION NO. 2510 OF 2019
Vikas Jagnnath Patil Age 59 years, occ. retired R/o 02, Gut No. 94/2 Gajanan Park Nimkhedi Shivar Shri Ram Nagar Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
WITH
(123) WRIT PETITION NO. 2511 OF 2019
Shaikh Munir Shaikh Lal Shaikh Age 60 years, occ. retired R/o Plot No. 1, Shah Alam Nagar Amalner, Tq. Amalner Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
| {87} wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH | |
| (124) WRIT PETITION NO. 3700 of 2019 | |
| Kira Age |
n S/o Raghunath Patil 61 years, occ. retired, |
| R/o | Plot No.9, Sadgur nagar |
| Near | Pol Factory, |
| Jalga | on, Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner |
Versus
| {88} | wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|---|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
WITH
(125) WRIT PETITION NO. 3699 OF 2019
| Cha Age |
ndrashekhar s/o Zipru Patil 59 years, Occ. retired, |
|
|---|---|---|
| R/o | Plot No. 17, Gut No. 2/2-B/2 | |
| Sam | arth Nagar, Pimprala | |
| Jalg | aon, Dist. Jalgaon | Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH | ||
| (126) WRIT PETITION NO. 3701 | OF 2019 |
Shashikant s/o Govind Joshi
wp234419.odt
{89}
Age 61 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 12, Mahavir Nagar Yawal Road, Chopda Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Ashok s/o Ramrao Salave Age 59 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 37, Ganpati Nagar Pimprala, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner Versus
| {90} | wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|---|
| Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
||
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH (128) WRIT PETITION NO. 3703 |
OF 2019 | |
| Sk. Age R/o Nea Jalg |
Mahemood Sk. Roshan Pinjari 62 years, Occ. retired Plot no. 27, Azadnagar r Khanderao Nagar, Pimprala aon, Dist. Jalgaon |
Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra |
|
| Mumbai 20 | Respondents |
{91}
wp234419.odt
WITH
(129) WRIT PETITION NO. 3704 OF 2019
WITH (130) WRIT PETITION NO. 3705 OF 2019 Prakash s/o Pandurang Pawar Age 62 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 73, Shiv Colony, Opp. Hanuman Mandir, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra
{92} wp234419.odt
{93} wp234419.odt
WITH (132 WRIT PETITION NO. 3707 OF 2019 Sahebrao S/o Budhaji Nikam Age 60 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 6, Sushilchandra Apartment,
Versus
| {94} | wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| (134) WRIT PETITION NO. 3709 O | F 2019 | |
| Abdu Age 6 R/o Polic Dist. |
l Sattarkha Safdarkha Pathan 5 years, occ. retired, Sector No. 33, Room No. 5 e Head Quarters, Jalgaon Jalgaon |
Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| {95} wp234419.odt |
|
|---|---|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH (135) WRIT PETITION NO. 3710 OF 2019 |
|
| Vika Age R/o Tq. |
s S/o Gajanan Joshi 62 years, occ. retired, Plot No. 11, Om Sai Nagar Chopda Chopda,Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
| WITH (136) WRIT PETITION NO. 3712 OF 2019 |
Mushtaq Ahamed Sk.Isa Shaikh Age 62 years, occ. retired R/o Plot No. 56, Raja Colony Opp. Apana Kirana Store, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon. Petitioner
wp234419.odt
{96}
| Versus | |
|---|---|
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents WITH (137) WRIT PETITION NO. 3713 OF 2019 |
| Naba | bkha Mehbubkhan Pathan |
| Age 6 R/o Shiv Dist. |
3 years, occ. retired, Plot No. 22, Umar Colony aji Nagar, Jalgaon Jalgaon Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police |
{97} wp234419.odt Jalgaon 5 Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents
| WITH (138) WRIT PETITION NO. 3714 OF 2019 |
|
|---|---|
| Mad Age R/o |
havrao S/o Iccharam Patil 64 years, Occ. retired, Sector No. 29, Room No. 3 |
| Polic Dist. |
e Head Quarter, Jalgaon Jalgaon Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 Respondents |
WITH
(139) WRIT PETITION NO. 3715 OF 2019
Gulabrao S/o Sitaram Pawar Age 59 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 49, Adarsh Nagar
wp234419.odt
{98}
| Eran | dol, Tq Erandol | |
|---|---|---|
| Dist. | Jalgaon | Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH (140) WRIT PETITION NO. 3716 |
OF 2019 | |
| Vijay | kumar S/o Gajanan Zope | |
| Age 6 R/o Jalga |
5 years, occ. retired, Plot No. 40, Shiv Colony, on, Dist. Jalgaon |
Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police |
Vishnu Pandurang Kulkarni Age 62 years, Occ. retired,
wp234419.odt
{100}
R/o Plot No. 97, Radhakrishna Nagar Shivaji Nagar, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
Vasant s/o Mahadu Jagdale, Age 64 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 98, Sharma Nagar, Chittodgad Road, Dhule, Tq. & District Dhule Petitioner
Versus
wp234419.odt
{101}
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
|---|---|---|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Dhule. |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH (144) WRIT PETITION NO. 3735 |
OF 2019 | |
| Muha Age 6 R/o P (Aish Dhul |
mmad Ibrahim Sheikh Tajuddin, 7 years, Occ. retired, lot No. 9, Samarth Colony, a Colony), Chalisgaon Road, e, Tq. & District Dhule. |
Petitioner |
| Versus | ||
| 1 | The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. |
|
| 2 | Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai |
|
| 3 | Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik |
|
| 4 | Dist. Superintendent of Police Dhule |
|
| 5 | Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra Mumbai 20 |
Respondents |
| WITH (145) WRIT PETITION NO. 3746 |
OF 2019 |
wp234419.odt
{102}
Nasirkha s/o Lalkha Pathan, Age 64 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 16/B, Muslim Nagar, Near Munshi Majid Dhule, Tq. & District Dhule.
Petitioner
Versus
Nawal s/o Sukdeo Mahajan, Age 65 years, Occ. retired, R/o Plot No. 78, Sattarsingimata Police Station Gruh Nirman Housing Society, Deopur, Dhule, Tq. & District Dhule. Petitioner
Versus
{103} wp234419.odt
Mr. P.B.Patil, advocate for petitioners. Mrs.M.A.Deshpande, A.G.P. for Respondents.
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND
JUDGMENT (Per Nitin W. Sambre, J.) :
Heard learned Counsel for respective parties.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.
2 Since all these petitions involve a common and similar issue, the facts of Writ Petition No.2344 of 2019 are taken into account for dealing with the issue.
3 The petitioner, who is superannuated after completing service with the Respondent-Home Department, has preferred this petition with a prayer for refund of amount of Rs.46,843/-, recovered from the petitioner, along with interest @ 18% p.a.
{104}
wp234419.odt
4 According to the petitioner, he is superannuated on April 30, 2013 and an amount of Rs.46,843/- came to be deducted from his gratuity. According to them, said deduction was never preceded with any show cause notice or an opportunity of hearing.
5 It is needless to mention that the date of retirement of petitioners, in all these petitions, are different, so also the quantum of amount recovered from them.
6 Petitioners claim that the Respondent-authority, alleging that the amount, to the aforesaid extent, was paid in excess, to which the petitioners were lawfully entitled to, has initiated said action of recovery.
7 Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab & others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White
Washer & others , reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, submission of the learned Counsel for petitioners is, since the petitioners are not at fault while receiving the aforesaid amount, the amount cannot be recovered from the petitioners. The learned Counsel would draw support from the observations made by the Apex Court in para 18 of the said judgment. The learned Counsel would also rely upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.695/2016, decided on 12th February, 2018 and order dated 18th July, 2017, passed in Writ Petition No.5367/2016, so as to substantiate his aforesaid contentions. The submissions are, the persons, who are similarly placed like petitioners herein, are granted relief by this Court.
{105} wp234419.odt
8 Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the Respondents, would urge that the instant petitions, filed by the respective petitioners before this Court, are not maintainable as there is alternate remedy available to them. The further submission is, the amount, which is already deducted, cannot be directed to be refunded, as the amount, which was deducted, was found to be paid in excess to the petitioners, to which they were lawfully not entitled to. Accordingly, the learned A.G.P. submits that the petitions are liable to be dismissed.
9 Considered rival submissions.
10 The bar of alternate remedy, as is claimed by the learned A.G.P., will not be attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case since, before deducting the amount from the dues, which were payable to the petitioners, neither any show cause notice nor an opportunity of hearing was offered. Once it is noticed that the principles of natural justice were not followed by the Respondent-authorities while undertaking the action of deduction, this Court has every right to overlook the aspect of availability of alternate remedy; and to entertain the petition. As such, preliminary objection raised by the learned A.G.P. is overlooked.
11 Apart from above, the fact remains that in the matter of State of Punjab & others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer & others, (cited supra), the Apex Court, in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 has held thus:
wp234419.odt
{106}
“16 This Court in Syed Abdul Qadir V. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475, held as follows: (SCC pp. 491-92, para 59)
“59 Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter-affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made.”
(emphasis supplied)
Premised on the legal proposition considered above, namely, whether on the touchstone of equity and arbitrariness, the extract of the judgment reproduced above, culls out yet another consideration, which would make the process of recovery iniquitous and arbitrary. It is apparent from the conclusions drawn in
wp234419.odt
{107}
Syed Abdul Qadir case, that recovery of excess payments, made from the employees who have retired from service, or are close to their retirement, would entail extremely harsh consequences, outweighing the monetary gains by the employer. It cannot be forgotten, that a retired employee or an employee about to retire, is a class apart from those who have sufficient service to their credit, before their retirement. Needless to mention, that at retirement, an employee is past his youth, his needs are far in excess of what they were when he was younger. Despite that, his earnings have substantially dwindled (or would substantially be reduced on his retirement). Keeping the aforesaid circumstances in mind, we are satisfied that recovery would be iniquitous and arbitrary, if it is sought to be made after the date of retirement. A period within one year from the date of superannuation, in our considered view, should be accepted as the period during which the recovery should be treated as iniquitous. Therefore, it would be justified to treat an order of recovery, on account of wrongful payment made to an employee, as arbitrary, if the recovery is sought to be made after the employee's retirement, or within one year from the date of his retirement on superannuation.
17 Last of all, reference may be made to the decision in Sahib Ram v. Union of India, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18, wherein it was concluded as under: (SCC pp. 19-20, paras 4-5)
wp234419.odt
{108}
find any force in this contention. It is seen that the Government in consultation with the University Grants Commission had revised the pay scale of a Librarian working in the colleges to Rs.700-1600 but they insisted upon the minimum educational qualification of first or second class MA, Msc, Mcom plus a first or second class BLib Science or a Diploma in Library Science. The relaxation given was only as regards obtaining first or second class in the prescribed educational qualification but not relaxation in the educational qualification itself.
5 Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant. The principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The appeal is allowed partly without any order as to costs.”
(emphasis supplied)
It would be pertinent to mention, that Librarians were equated with Lecturers, for the grant of the pay scale of Rs.700-1600. The above pay parity would extend to Librarians, subject to the condition that they possessed the
wp234419.odt
{109}
prescribed minimum educational qualification (first or second class MA, Msc, Mcom plus a first or second class BLib Science or a diploma in Library Science, the degree of Mlib Science being a preferential qualification). For those Librarians appointed prior to 3-12-1972, the educational qualifications were relaxed. In Sahib Ram case, a mistake was committed by wrongly extending to the appellants the revised pay scale, by relaxing the prescribed educational qualifications, even though the appellants concerned were ineligible for the same. The appellants concerned were held not eligible for the higher scale, by applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. This Court, in the above circumstances, did not allow the recovery of the excess payment. This was apparently done because this Court felt that the employees were entitled to wages, for the post against which they had discharged their duties. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion, that it would be iniquitous and arbitrary for an employer to require an employee to refund the wages of a higher post, against which he had wrongfully been permitted to work, though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
18 It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees,
wp234419.odt
or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.”
12 From the pleadings and the submissions in the petitions, it could be noticed that the amount in excess, which was paid to the petitioners, as employees of the State Government, was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud practiced by them.
13 The petitioners were never made aware that the amount, which was deducted from the dues, was paid in excess of their lawful entitlement and the petitioners were in fact unaware about the same. Perhaps, it could be inferred from the record that the excess payment, if any, paid to the petitioners is a mistake on the part of the Drawing & Disbursing authority and as such, the petitioners cannot be held responsible for the same.
14 Apart from above, the Division Bench of this Court, while deciding Writ Petition No.695/2016, has, in detail,
{111} wp234419.odt
considered the submissions of learned A.G.P. and has noticed that the petitioners were working in Group “C” category and as such, their cases are also covered by the aforesaid Division Bench judgment.
15 In that view of the matter, all these writ petitions stand allowed. The excess amount, which is deducted from the amount of retirement dues payable to the petitioners in the form of gratuity, be refunded to the respective petitioners along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date the amount was recovered. The said refund be made within a period of six months from today.
16 With these observations, Rule is made absolute to the extent as aforesaid with no order as to costs.
NITIN W. SAMBRE JUDGE
PRASANNA B. VARALE JUDGE
adb
2 issues framed by the court
Could the petitions be entertained despite an alternate remedy where deductions were made without notice or hearing?
Could excess payments be recovered from retired Group C employees' gratuity when they had committed no fraud or misrepresentation?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab & others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer & othersApplied¶866
(2015) 4 SCC 334 · Who else cites this
Writ Petition No.695/2016Followed¶897
Writ Petition No.5367/2016Referred¶861
Vishwasrao s/o Manikrao Patil
The State of Maharashtra
Director General of Police Maharashtra State, Mumbai
Inspector General of Police Nasik Region, Nasik
Dist. Superintendent of Police Jalgaon
Principal Accountant General (A & E) Maharashtra, Mumbai 20
PRASANNA B. VARALE
NITIN W. SAMBRE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
