Disposed

Balasaheb Laxman Dighe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC25 Jul 2019WP/5297/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge writ petition concerns the petitioner's claim for recognition as a full-time Assistant Teacher or Shikshan Sevak. The court directed respondent authorities to examine the claim expeditiously following a similar decided case and to maintain status quo pending the decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's claim to be treated as full-time Assistant Teacher/Shikshan Sevak directed to be examined expeditiously; status quo maintained pending decision; petition disposed of.

Balasaheb Laxman Dighe Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

28 WRIT PETITION NO.5297 OF 2019

¶4

BALASAHEB LAXMAN DIGHE

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

...

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Temak Rahul B.
AGP for Respondents State: Mrs. M.A.Deshpande
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 : Mr. V.D. Sapkal

¶9

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.
 DATE:25th July, 2019

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

Heard Mr. Temak, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sapkal, learned Advocate fgor respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respective parties agree that the petitioner is similarly situated as the petitioners in Writ Petition No.5237/2017 decided under order dated 5th July, 2018. In view of that, we follow the course.

¶13

Considering the above,we pass following order :

¶14

(i) Respondent no.3/4 shall examine the claim of the

¶15

petitioner in the light of observations made by
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Uddhav

¶16

1/2

¶17

Trimbak Umbare vs State of Maharashtra and Others in
Writ Petition No. 9398 of 2012, decided at Bombay,
dated 1.2.2013 and pass speaking order in regard to
the claim of the petitioner for treating him as full
time Assistant Teacher/Shikshan Sevak.

¶18

(ii) The decision shall be taken by respondent no.3/4,
expeditiously and in case the petitioner is found
eligible, the proposals of the petitioner will be
forwarded to respondent no.2.

¶19

(iii) The status quo as it exists today in respect of the employment of the petitioner shall be maintained by respondent no.3/4 till the decision as aforesaid is taken.

¶20

(iv) Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶21

(MANGESH S. PATIL,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶22

JPC

¶23

2/2

Balasaheb Laxman Dighe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balasaheb Laxman Dighe 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dagadu Gahininath Gholve and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Damu Pawala Randive and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Laxman Maroti Mhaske Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Tukaram Hari Pawar and Others Vs the Union of India and Others

Sandip Kaduba Dandge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Uttam Vishnu Kalamkar Vs the Union of India and Others