Disposed

Shri. Umesh Laxmanrao Gaikwad and Anr. v. the Asst. Commissioner, Social Welfare Office, Solapur and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Mar 2020WP/3519/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of multiple Writ Petitions concerning grievances of employees in Government Granted Ashram Schools. The Court accepted the Respondent's contention that an alternative remedy exists under a 2017 Government Resolution and directed petitioners to approach the concerned authority within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute; petitioners directed to move representations before concerned authority within three weeks and exhaust alternative remedy.

Shri. Umesh Laxmanrao Gaikwad and Anr. Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

Digitally signed by Sachin Sachin R. wp--1001/19 & gr. Patil R. Date: Patil 2020.03.14 18:04:24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY +0530 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

wp--1001/19 & gr.

¶3

WRIT PETITION	NO. 1001	OF 2019
Suresh Tarasing Rathod & Anr. Versus		..Petitioners.
The Assistant Commissioner and	Others.	..Respondents.
WRIT PETITION	WITH NO. 1438	OF 2019
Nijgunayya R. Hiremath. Versus		..Petitioner.
The Assistant Commissioner and	Others.	..Respondents.
WRIT PETITION	WITH NO. 3544	OF 2019
Waghmode Babasaheb Jaywant Versus	and Anr.	..Petitioners.
The Assistant Commissioner and WRIT PETITION	Others. WITH NO. 3519	..Respondents. OF 2019
Umesh Laxmanrao Gaikwad and Versus	Anr.	..Petitioners.
The Assistant Commissioner and	Others.	..Respondents.
WRIT PETITION	WITH NO. 3545	OF 2019
Shivraj S. Bande and Others. Versus		..Petitioners.
The Assistant Commissioner and WRIT PETITION	Others. WITH NO. 3546	..Respondents. OF 2019
Uday Tulshidas Shelar. Versus		..Petitioner.
The Assistant Commissioner and	Others.	..Respondents.
WRIT PETITION	WITH NO. 3548	OF 2019
Bhusnur D. Sukhdev and Others. Versus The Assistant Commissioner and	Others.	..Petitioners. ..Respondents.

1 / 4

patilsr

wp-1001/19 & gr.

Mr. I. M. Khairdi for the Petitioners. Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for the Respondent-State.

¶8

Coram : R. K. DESHPANDE, & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. Date : March 11, 2020 .

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

¶11

For redressal of the grievance made in these petitions, it is the stand taken by the Respondents in their affidavit dated 6^th February 2020 filed in Writ Petition No. 3545 of 2019 that a forum is created under the Government Resolution dated 3^rd October 2017. Paragraph nos.3 and 4 of the said affidavit are reproduced below :

¶12

“3. I say and submit that, vide G.R.dated 03.10.2017, the Respondents have introduced a quasijudicial system for the redressal of the grievance of the employees working in Government Granted Ashram Schools/ Residential Schools & Institutions belongs to VJNT, OBC and Special Backward Class. The said authority, i.e., Regional Deputy Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, Pune Division is fully functional and the Petitioner may be directed to exhaust the alternate remedy to redress their grievances. It is humbly submitted that the present petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, 1950, is not maintainable as an alternate and

2 / 4

patilsr

wp-1001/19 & gr.

efficacious remedy is available to the Petitioner.

¶17

I say and submit that, by above Government Resolution dated 03.10.2017, the State Government has set up a quasi-judicial system where an aggrieved party should file a complaint first before the Regional Deputy Commissioners of the respective Division. The said complaint should be decided by the said authorities in accordance with law within a period of 30 days. If the grievance is not redressed, a remedy by way of Frist Appeal before Director, VJNT, OBC & SBC Welfare M. S. Pune within period of 15 days from date of order passed by the Division Officer, is provided. I say that the said Appeal shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of 45 days after the receiving the appeal.

¶18

. It is further submitted that if, the concerned employee is not satisfied / or is aggrieved with orders passed by the First Appellate Authority, then the aggrieved party can file a Second Appeal before Hon’ble principle Secretary, VJNT, OBC & SBC Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32 within a period of 15 days from date of order passed by the Hon’ble Principal Secretary, VJNT, OBC & SBC Welfare Department, Mantralaya and the Second appeal shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of 90 days after the receiving the appeal.

¶19

. I further say and submit that, if the grievance of the appellant is not addressed, then, they can submit an application before the Hon’ble Minister, VJNT, OBC & SBC Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai for its review, and the decision taken by the Hon’ble Minister, VJNT, OBC & SBC Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, will be final and no review can be made against that decision to any other competent authority.”

¶20

In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the Respondents, the Petitioners are at liberty to move their

3 / 4

patilsr

wp-1001/19 & gr.

representations within the period of three weeks from today before the concerned authority, which shall take decision in accordance with the said Government Resolution and communicate it to the Petitioners so that if the Petitioners are aggrieved by the said decision, appropriate appeal, within the stipulated time, can be preferred.

¶25

Rule is made absolute in aforestated terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

[PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.] [R. K. DESHPANDE, J.]

¶27

4 / 4

¶28

patilsr

Shri. Umesh Laxmanrao Gaikwad and Anr. v. the Asst. Commissioner, Social Welfare Office, Solapur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Umesh Laxmanrao Gaikwad and Anr. v. the Asst. Commissioner, Social Welfare Office, Solapur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shukla Rameshchandra S. Vs Somaiya Education Trust and 4 Ors.

Balbharti Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Francis Chettiar and Anr. Vs St. Xavier'S Technical Institute and 3 Ors.

Smt. Asawari Arvind Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Ors.

Shri. Uday Tulshidas Shelar Vs the Asst. Commissioner, Social Welfare Office, Solapur and Ors.

Smt. Archana Anand Shelar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru the Secretary, School Edu. Dept. and Ors.