Dismissed

Madhukar Sadashiv Malode v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC11 Oct 2021WP/5796/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition concerning the withdrawal of advance increments awarded in 2006-2008, the High Court of Bombay held that the subsequent Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017 cannot have retrospective effect to withdraw benefits already granted.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Any recovery made pursuant to the impugned resolution shall be refunded.

Madhukar Sadashiv Malode Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 107-wp 5796-2021.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 5796 OF 2021

¶4

Madhukar Sadashiv Malode

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and another

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Estling S. Murge, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. P. Tiwari, AGP for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. A. B. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

¶10

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

¶11

 DATED : 11th October, 2021.

¶12

PER COURT:-

¶13

.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for respondents.

¶14

2.It is submitted that petitioner in this Writ Petition is awarded
certificate of excellent work and advance increments in the year 2006
to 2008. He was given benefit of advance increments and same was
also paid. If the petitioner is already granted certificate of excellent
work in the year 2006 to 2008, then same cannot be withdrawn
retrospectively on the basis of subsequent Government Resolution.

¶15

1 of 2

¶16

2 107-wp 5796-2021.odt

¶17

3. The same view was taken by us in Writ Petition No.1954 of 2018 with other connected Writ Petitions under order dated 25.01.2019.

¶18

4.The Government Resolution dated 24.08.2017 will have
prospective effect and not retrospective and in that case benefit that
was accorded to petitioner of excellent work in the year 2006, 2007
and 2008, shall not be withdrawn and if any recovery is made pursuant
to the same, same shall be refunded to the petitioner.

¶19

5. In light of the above, Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs

¶20

( R. N. LADDHA )( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶21

P.S.B.

¶22

2 of 2

Madhukar Sadashiv Malode v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhukar Sadashiv Malode 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

Sham Govind Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kanak Sanjay Fatwani Vs the Union of India and Others

Ravindra Ganpat Baviskar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri. Chatrapati Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha Karanjkalla through Its Chairman Vs Vandana Krishna

Alkadevi Laxmanrao Adhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Tirupati Baburao Tidke and Others Vs State of Maharashtra and Another