Dismissed

Mohan Dhotre v. State of Maharashtr and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC26 Apr 2022NMW/277/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay rejected a notice of motion seeking directions for payment of leave encashment, gratuity, and pension. The court noted that termination due to moral turpitude is contested and other dues await the final writ petition decision, which was listed for precedence on 8th July 2022.

What did the court decide?

Notice of motion rejected; writ petition listed for final hearing on 8th July 2022 with high precedence.

Mohan Dhotre Vs State of Maharashtr and 2 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

12-nmw277-2016 in oswp1312-2012

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 277 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1312 OF 2012

¶5

Mohan Dhotre …Petitioner

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Mr. Vishal C. Ghosalkar with Mr. Vaibhav Jagdale for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. H. B. Takke, AGP for respondent no. 1/State.

¶11

Mr. Shrishailya Deshmukh for respondent no. 3.

¶12

CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & V. G. BISHT, J.

¶13

DATE: APRIL 26, 2022

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1. By filing this notice of motion, the petitioner, a dismissed employee, seeks direction to the respondents to pay to him dues on account of leave encashment, gratuity and pension. Such notice of motion, according to Mr. Ghosalkar, learned advocate for the petitioner, has been taken out pursuant to the liberty granted by the Supreme Court by an order dated 5^th July 2013 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 16038 of 2013. He has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v/s. C. G. Ajay Babu & Anr. , reported in (2018) 9 SCC 529, in support of his contention that despite termination of service, the petitioner is entitled to

¶16

¶17

12-nmw277-2016 in oswp1312-2012

¶18

gratuity.

¶19

2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s service has been terminated on the ground of moral turpitude in the course of his employment. Unless the Court holds the termination to be invalid, there can be no question of making any direction for payment of gratuity.

¶20

3. In so far as the other dues are concerned, they must also await final decision on the writ petition.

¶21

4. Accordingly, we reject the notice of motion.

¶22

5. However, since the writ petition is pending on the file of this Court for almost a decade, we propose to give the same precedence in hearing. List the writ petition for final hearing on 8^th July 2022 ( fairly high on board ).

¶23

(V. G. BISHT, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶24

Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2022.04.28 12:34:31 +0530

¶25

Mohan Dhotre v. State of Maharashtr and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Dhotre v. State of Maharashtr and 2 Ors.

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

Hrishikesh Laxman Kolhe Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Royal Sundaram Alliance Isnurance Company Ltd. through Mr. Manish S. Waghmare Manager Legale Vs Mrs. Vinaya Undaybabu Shah and Ors.

Royal Sundaram Alliance Isnurance Company Ltd. through Mr. Manish S. Waghmare Manager Legale Vs Mrs. Vinaya Undaybabu Shah and Ors.

Sunil Rama Chaudhari and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Manasi Mahesh Parab and 22 Ors. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai 2 Ors.

Cummins Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Thr Its Authorized Representative Vs Union of India Thr the Employees Provident Fund Organization and Ors.