Partly allowed

Kishor S/O Vitthalrao Sangidwar v. State of Maharashtra, through Principle Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and 2 Other

Bombay HC1 Oct 2021WP/708/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the pendency of a proposal for higher pay grade scale submitted by the petitioner's employer. The High Court directed Respondents 1 and 2 to decide the proposal within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to decide the pending proposal dated 23.07.2015 regarding the petitioner's higher pay grade scale within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Kishor S/O Vitthalrao Sangidwar Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

24-WP 708-18-

¶2

1/2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.708 OF 2018

¶5

PETITIONER :- Kishor Vitthalrao Sangidwar, aged about 53 years, Occup. Service, R/o Dadabhai Nawroji Ward, Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur, Mob. No.9067060670.

¶6

...VERSUS...

¶7

RESPONDENTS :-1. State of Maharashtra, through Principle Secretary Urban Development Department, Mantraya, Mumbai.

¶8

Director of Municipal Administration, Sir Pochkhanwala Marg, Worli, Mumbai.

¶9

The Municipal Council, Ballarpur through its Chief Officer, Ballarpur, Dist. Chandrapur.

¶10

Mr.M.P. Khajanchi, counsel for the petitioner. Ms.N.P. Mehta, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. M.I.Dhatrak, counsel for respondent No.3

¶11

CORAM : SUNIL B.SHUKRE &

¶12

ANIL S.KILOR, JJ. DATE : 01.10.2021.

¶13

O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per :Sunil B.Shukre, J.)

¶14

Heard.

¶15

2.. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

¶16

by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Kavita

24-WP 708-18-

2/2

It is seen from the reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 that in the meeting of General body of Municipal Council Ballarpur, Dist. Chandrapur held on 26.03.2015, an unanimous resolution was passed to send the proposal to respondent Nos.1 and 2 for sanctioning the benefit of higher pay grade scale to the petitioner and accordingly, the proposal was forwarded to the respondent No.2 on 23.07.2015 seeking the sanction to the same.

¶21

It appears that the proposal sent to respondent No.2 is still pending. It is now high time that the proposal is decided by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to be decided the proposal dated 23.07.2015 in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the order.

¶22

Rule accordingly. No costs.

¶23

(ANIL S. KILOR,J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE,J)

¶24

Kavita

Kishor S/O Vitthalrao Sangidwar v. State of Maharashtra, through Principle Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and 2 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishor S/O Vitthalrao Sangidwar v. State of Maharashtra, through Principle Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and 2 Other

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

Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society, Amravati through Secretary and Another Vs State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mumbai and Another

Mohammad Riyasat Bi Jalaluddin Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Rural Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Smt. Uma Wd/O Shankar Wadewale Vs the Union of India Thr. Commissioner, the Employees Provident Fund, Nagpur

Gopal Namdeorao Malasne and Others Vs the Joint Director, Health Services Department, Pune and Others

Khushal S/O Parasramji Bamnote and Others Vs Union of India, Ministry of Housing and Urbn Affairs, through Its Secretary, New Delhi and Others

Sachin S/O Motiraoji Raipure and Others Vs Union of India, Ministry of Housing and Urbn Affairs, through Its Secretary, New Delhi and Others