Dismissed

Ku. Prerna Bapurao Bahe v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Mumbai and Other

Bombay HC13 Sept 2019WP/6293/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a Government Resolution creating an Appellate Authority for a Residential School for mentally retarded children, arguing it violated a prior court order. The court held the challenge offered no benefit to the petitioner and dismissed the petition, leaving her free to approach civil courts for claims against the termination.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to adopt all such remedies as are available in law.

Ku. Prerna Bapurao Bahe Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 930.WP6293.19.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.6293/2019

¶4

Ku. Prerna Bapurao Bahe vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

¶5

.............................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

............................................................................................................................................ Shri. P. S. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. A. M. Deshpande, Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶7

CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE & VINAY JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 13^th September, 2019

¶8

The petitioner was appointed as an Attendant in the Residential School for the Mentally Retarded Children. The petitioner filed an appeal before Regional Deputy Commissioner, Amravati on 05-06-2015 when her services were terminated. The service conditions of the petitioner were governed by Maharashtra Handicapped Special School and Training Center Code. The Appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was as provided under the Code. The Appeal came to be allowed and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service. The order of reinstatement was set aside by this Court in Writ Petition No.215 of 2016, filed by the Management on the ground that the Appellate Authority to adjudicate the dispute arising out of termination, cannot be appointed by the executive instructions. In other words the function of adjudication cannot be entrusted by

¶9

2 930.WP6293.19.odt

¶10

executive instructions. The Appeal was accordingly dismissed.

¶11

After dismissal of the appeal, again the State Government has created the Appellate Authority, as per the Government Resolution dated 05-02-2019. The challenge of the petitioner is that such Government Resolution is contrary to the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 215 of 2016 decided on 10-01-2017.

¶12

We do not find as to how the challenge to the Government Resolution dated 05-02-2019 would benefit the petitioner. If it is contrary to the decision of this Court, the petitioner cannot avail the said remedy. However, it does not mean that the petitioner cannot approach the Civil Court to challenge the termination or to claim compensation for wrongful termination from service as is available in law. This is not the petition challenging the termination from service.

¶13

In view of above, we do not find any reason to entertain this petition.

¶14

The petition is dismissed.

¶15

The petitioner is at liberty to adopt all such remedies as are available in law.

¶16

JUDGEJUDGE

¶17

RGurnule

Ku. Prerna Bapurao Bahe v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Mumbai and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Prerna Bapurao Bahe v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Mumbai and Other

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

Swabhimani Setkari Sanghatna, through Its President, Prashant Kashiram Dikkar Vs Union of India, through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Mumbai and 4 Others

Sunita Sudhakar Reddiwar Vs Directorate of Accountant and Treasures, Maharashtra State, Mumbai Thr. Director and Another

Tirath S/O Jagraj Yetre and Another Vs State of Maharashtra Dept. of Urban Dev. Mumbai through Principal Secretary and Others

Shri Dattatraya Sansthan Shikhar Mahur through Secretary Shri. Ganesh Tukaram Patil Vs State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Revenue and Foerest Department, Mumbai and Others

Vilas S/O Dadaji Ramteke Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mumbai and 3 Others

Panchasheel Vidhyaalankar Shikshan Sanstha, Washim Thr. President Satyanand Bhimrao Kamble and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mumbai and Others