Allowed

Sandip S/O Ramrao Uppod v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Department of Social Justice and Special Assistance, Mumbai

Bombay HC16 Dec 2020WP/3431/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench allowed the petition. The court directed respondent no. 2 (Commissioner of Social Welfare) to consider a proposal forwarded by respondent no. 3 and decide on it within two months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent no.2 directed to consider proposal dated 6.12.2019 forwarded by respondent no.3 and take a decision within two months.

Sandip S/O Ramrao Uppod Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3431 OF 2020

¶4

1.Sandip s/o. Ramrao Uppod, Aged 31 years, Occ. Service, r/o. Vitthalwadi, State Bank Chowk, Yeotmal, District Yeotmal.

¶5

2.Rahul s/o. Ramchandraji Lawhale, Aged 29 years, Occ. Service, r/o. Vitthalwadi, State Bank Chowk, Yeotmal, District Yeotmal.

¶6

3.Subhedar Ramji Ambedkar Education Society, Wardha, through its President, Dinesh Baliramji Sawai, having its Office at Savanghi Meghe Road, Wardha, District Wardha. …....... PETITIONERS

¶7

// VERSUS //

¶8

1.The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Department of Social Justice and Special Assistance, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶9

¶10

2.The Commissioner of Social Welfare, State of Maharashtra, 6, Church Road, Pune-1.

¶11

3.The Deputy Commissioner of Social Welfare, State of Maharashtra. Amravati Division, Amravati.

¶12

4.The Assistant Commissioner of Social Welfare, State of Maharashtra, Yeotmal, District Yeotmal.

¶13

5.Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, Amravati, Camp, Amravati, District Amravati. …....... RESPONDENTS

¶14

____________________________________________________________ Mr.B.G.Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.N.R.Patil, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 4.

¶15

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE &

¶16

AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ. DATE : 16.12.2020.

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J) :

¶18

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

¶19

finally by consent of Mr.B.G.Kulkarni, learned Counsel for

¶20

the petitioners and Mr.N.R.Patil, learned Assistant

¶21

¶22

Government Pleader, who waives service on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4. There is no need to issue notice to respondent no.5 as no relief is claimed against respondent no.5.

¶23

We find that appropriate directions can be issued to respondent no.2 which will suffice the purpose sought to be achieved by this petition.

¶24

The petition is, therefore, allowed. Respondent no.2 is directed to consider the proposal dated 6.12.2019 forwarded by respondent no.3 and take a decision on it, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of order. Rule accordingly. No costs.

¶25

JUDGE JUDGE

¶26

[jaiswal]

¶27

Sandip S/O Ramrao Uppod v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Department of Social Justice and Special Assistance, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip S/O Ramrao Uppod v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Department of Social Justice and Special Assistance, Mumbai

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

Anant Prabhakar Deshmukh Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Another

Shree Narayanji Agency through Proprietor Karan S/O Bharatbhusan Budhraja Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary Food and Drug Department, Mumbai and Others

Rupendrasingh @ Mickky S/O Balwirsingh Bakshi Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Sadar Distnagpur and Another

Shri. Aditya S/O Ramrao Bhoyar and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Secondary and Higher Department, Mumbai and 3 Others

Ankit S/O Raju Kedare Vs the Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee-Thr. Its Principal Secre.and Deputy Direc

Milind Govindrao Kachare Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Housing Development Department, Mumbai