Disposed

Fattemahammad Abdul Fatah v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC13 Jan 2020WP/7407/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by a retired government servant seeking expedited consideration of his long-pending pension claim. The Court directed the authorities to decide the pending representation within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to decide the petitioner's pending representation dated 29th May, 2013, and reminders, expeditiously within six weeks from the date of the order.

Fattemahammad Abdul Fatah Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

7407.18wp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.7407 OF 2018

¶5

Fattemahammad Abdul Fatah,

¶6

Age: 65 years, Occ: Retired Govt. Servant, resident of Aurangabad, District Aurangabad Plot No.37, Gut NO.38 Patel Nagar, Beed by pass

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032

¶10

The Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, Aurangabad, through its Commissioner

¶11

RESPONDENTS

¶12

Mr Amar D. Soman, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for respondent/State; Mrs Anjali Dube Bajpai, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶13

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

¶14

DATED : 13th JANUARY, 2020

¶15

ORAL ORDER:

¶16

Mr. Soman, learned Counsel for the petitioner by

¶17

inviting our attention to the documents placed on record, more particularly Government decisions dated 3^rd August, 2001 and 1^st April, 2020 and the representation submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad dated 29^th May, 2013 and reminders submitted that in spite of the repeated requests to consider the claim of the petitioner, no heed is paid to the claim of the petitioner for considerable length of period.

¶18

Notice was issued by this Court to the respondents by order dated 9^th July, 2018.

¶19

Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner, on instructions, makes a statement before this Court that though representation dated 29^th May, 2013 is pending for decision, same would be decided at the earliest.

¶20

Considering statement made by learned Counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, we dispose of the

¶21

writ petition with directions to decide the representation dated 29^th May, 2013 and reminders

¶22

expeditiously and not later than six weeks from today.

¶23

With these directions, writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶24

¶25

[ANIL S. KILOR, J.] [PRASANNA B. VARALE,J.]

¶26

Tupe

Fattemahammad Abdul Fatah v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fattemahammad Abdul Fatah v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Sanjay Madanlal Kabra Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Bibhishan Rokhade Shere and Another Vs Deepa Mudhol Mundhe the Collector Osmanabad and Another

Sapana Suryakant Wale Vs a S Ukirde

Shri Dadasaheb Gajmal Co. Operative Bank Ltd. through Its Chairman Sahebrao Gajmal Patil Vs Reserve Bank of India through Regional Director and Others

Shamsundar Shankar Khamkar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dr Nitin Chudaman Jadhav and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others