Disposed

Dr. Anuya Ajay Chandorkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC7 Jan 2021WP/3260/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court directed Joint Director, Higher Education, Aurangabad, to expedite decision on petitioners' proposal for five increments considering them Ph.D. holders within three months, mandating consideration of previous judgment W.P. No. 1273 of 2018.

What did the court decide?

Directed Joint Director, Higher Education, Aurangabad to decide the increment proposal within three months.

Dr. Anuya Ajay Chandorkar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

W.P. 3260-2020

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3260 OF 2020

¶5

Dr. Anuya w/o Ajay Chandorkar ..Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr V.P. Kadam, Advocate for petitioner Mr A.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent-State

¶9

AND -

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 3264 OF 2020

¶11

Dr. Shilpa w/o Dadarao Jivrag ..Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State of Maharashtra and ors.

¶14

..Respondents

¶15

Mr V.P. Kadam, Advocate for petitioner Mr A.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent-State

¶16

AND -

¶17

WRIT PETITION NO. 3222 OF 2020

¶18

Dr. Pradnya w/o Devidas Deshmukh ..Petitioner

¶19

Versus

¶20

The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents

¶21

Mr V.P. Kadam, Advocate for petitioner Mr A.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent-State

¶22

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

¶23

DATE : 7th January 2021

¶24

PER COURT :

¶25

Mr Kadam, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that three increments are given to the petitioners. However, the petitioners are entitled for five increments. The petitioners have passed Ph.D. prior to joining the

¶26

¶27

W.P. 3260-2020

¶28

services as Assistant Professors in Senior College. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1273 of 2018 dated 11.2.2019.

¶29

The learned A.G.P. submits that the proposals are pending for consideration with the Joint Director, Higher Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad and the Joint Director, Higher Education would decide the proposal on its own merits.

¶30

Considering the fact that the proposals for five increments are forwarded by the College and pending with the Joint Director, Higher Education, we direct the Joint Director, Higher Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad to take decision upon the said proposals expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from today. Naturally, the Joint Director, Higher Education would consider the judgment delivered by this Court dated 11.2.2019 in Writ Petition No. 1273 of 2018.

¶31

In case, the Joint Director, Higher Education, Aurangabad decides the proposals in favour of the petitioners, then benefit as per said order be accorded to the petitioners.

¶32

Writ Petitions accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶33

( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶34

vvr

Dr. Anuya Ajay Chandorkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Anuya Ajay Chandorkar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Urmila Shashikant Gitte Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashok Buta Baviskar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pramod Dnyandeo Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ganpat Ramdas Shete and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dr. Pradnya Devidas Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dr Shilpa Dadarao Jivrag Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another