Disposed

Chandrashekhar Rajeshwarrao Deshpande v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Bombay HC17 Dec 2019WP/6551/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Jr. Stenographer, approached the High Court challenging a communication regarding increments and sought restoration of two additional increments. Relying on a Division Bench order, the court allowed an amendment to the petition's year and disposed of it.

What did the court decide?

Oral amendment to correct the year in the petition allowed; Two additional increments granted to petitioner.

Chandrashekhar Rajeshwarrao Deshpande Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 6551.2019WP...doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

927 WRIT PETITION NO.6551 OF 2019

¶4

CHANDRASHEKHAR RAJESHWARRAO DESHPANDE.. Petitioner
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS .. Respondents

¶5

Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Abhishek C. Deshpande
AGP for Respondents / State : Shri S.G. Sangle
Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Shri V.D. Sapkal

¶6

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

¶7

Dated : December 17, 2019

¶8

PER COURT :-

¶9

1.At this stage, Mr Deshpande, the learned counsel for the
petitioner orally prayed for amending the petition and submitted
that, by typographical error the year is referred to as 2010, whereas it
should have been 2019. Oral prayer is allowed. The amendment to

¶10

be carried out forthwith.

¶11

2.Heard Mr Deshpande, the learned counsel for the
petitioner. The petitioner is working as Jr. Stenographer with
respondent no.4 college. A challenge is raised to the communication
dated 03.05.2019 issued by respondent no.3 and also a direction is
sought for to restore two additional increments to the petitioner and

¶12

Gajanan

¶13

2 6551.2019WP...doc

¶14

by way of interim relief the recovery initiated was requested to be
stayed. Mr. Deshpande by inviting our attention to the order passed
by the Division Bench dated 06.06.2019 in bunch of petitions
submitted that, the issue raised in the petition is squarely covered by
the order dated 06.06.2019.

¶15

3.On perusal of the contentions of the petition, the
documents placed on record and the order of the Division Bench
dtd. 06.06.2019, we find merit in the submission of Mr. Deshpande.
Accordingly we see no reason to take different view than the view
adopted by the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated
06.06.2019. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

¶16

( ANIL S. KILOR, J. ) ( PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. )

¶17

Gajanan

Chandrashekhar Rajeshwarrao Deshpande v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrashekhar Rajeshwarrao Deshpande v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary 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

Shrikant Nana Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dhanraj Navalraj Rizwani Vs Prajakta Lavangare Verma and Anr.

Vishal Shrikrishan Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Parmeshwar Gangaram Dhole Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dnyaneshwar Vitthal Landge Vs Gajanan Susar and Others

Sunil Govind Dhake and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others