The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad bench held that since the respondents paid the petitioner the PPF amount and the difference from the 6th Pay Commission, the petitioner's grievance was redressed. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without costs.
The writ petition is disposed of. No costs awarded to any party.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1)
1015-wp-3886-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3886 OF 2020
NARAYAN ONKAR SAPKALE ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS..RESPONDENTS
Mr. R. V. Gore, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. S. Shinde, AGP for Respondents-State.
Mr. L. V. Sangeet, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
S. G. DIGE, JJ.
DATED : 16th FEBRUARY, 2022.
PER COURT:-
1.The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that, after filing of the petition,
respondents had paid the petitioner PPF amount, so
also difference of 6th Pay Commission.
2.In view of that, grievance of the
petitioner stands redressed.
3.Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Devendra/February-2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's grievance regarding PPF amount and 6th Pay Commission difference is redressed after respondents' payment.
Whether the writ petition should be disposed of.
Narayan Onkar Sapkale
The State of Maharashtra
S. V. Gangapurwala
S. G. Dige
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court