Disposed

Ratilal Mangu Pawar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Bombay HC1 Feb 2021WP/1845/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court bench accepted that the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal at Aurangabad is not functioning. It directed Respondent No. 2 to decide petitions regarding absorption, permanency, and regularization expeditiously within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No. 2 to decide petitions for absorption, permanency, and regularization within six months.

Ratilal Mangu Pawar and Others Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

(1)

¶2

31-53

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

31 WRIT PETITION NO.1793 OF 2021

¶5

BAPU MAHADU PATIL AND ANOTHER..PETITIONERS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS..RESPONDENTS

¶8

AND

¶9

53 WRIT PETITION NO.1845 OF 2021

¶10

RATILAL MANGU PAWAR AND OTHERS..PETITIONERS

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS..RESPONDENTS

¶13

Mr. Sandesh R. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mrs. P. V. Diggikar and Mr. S. R. Yadav Lonikar,
AGP for Respondents-State in respective WP.

¶14

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

¶15

 DATED : 01st FEBRUARY, 2021.

¶16

PER COURT:-

¶17

1.The learned counsel for petitioners
submits that the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal at present is not functioning.

¶18

2.Accepting the statement of the learned
counsel that the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal at Aurangabad is not functioning, we have
entertained the petition.

¶19

(2) 31-53

¶20

3.The learned counsel submits that only
directions are sought against the respondents to
take decision upon their applications for benefit
of absorption, permanency and regularization. The
learned counsel further submits that policy
decision was already taken to that effect.

¶21

4.The learned A.G.P. accepts notice for all
respondents.

¶22

5.In case, the representations given by
petitioners for absorption, permanency and
regularization is pending with respondent no.2 and
respondent no.2 is competent to take decision upon
it, then respondent no.2 shall decide the same on
its own merits, in accordance with law and policy,
expeditiously and preferably within a period of six
(06) months.

¶23

6.Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs.

¶24

Devendra/February-2021

Ratilal Mangu Pawar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratilal Mangu Pawar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

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

Pratik Sanosh Thombre Thr Guardian of His Fater Santosh Eknath Thombreand Another Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary and Others

Nidhi Narendrasing Rajput Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Hariom Sanjay Vibhute and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bapu Mahadu Patil and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Mahesh Ankush Nilewad Under Guardian Ankush Govindrao Nilewad Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Chief Secretary and Others

Vrushali Dipak Manchare Vs the Union of India and Others