Allowed

Farukhkhan Ikbal Pathan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary School Education Dept. and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Jul 2022WP/8063/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP 8063 of 2022, the Court quashed the rejection of a peon's appointment proposal, holding that subsequent Government Resolutions could not apply retrospectively. The Education Officer was directed to reconsider the case expeditiously within six months based on conditions existing at the time of appointment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Education Officer directed to reconsider proposal expeditiously within six months.

Farukhkhan Ikbal Pathan and Anr. Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

WP 8063 of 2022.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 8063 OF 2022

¶4

Farukhkhan Ikbal Pathan and Anr....Petitioners

¶5

vs.
The State of Maharashtra Thr
The Secretary School
 Education Dept. and Anr ...Respondents

¶6

*****

¶7

Mr. Laxman Deshmukh - Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. V. M. Mali - AGP for the Respondent-State

¶8

*****

¶9

CORAM :S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE :11th JULY, 2022

¶10

P. C. :-

¶11

1. The proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the Petitioner

¶12

No. 1 as ‘Peon’ is rejected under the impugned Order.

¶13

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned

¶14

AGP for the Respondent-State.

¶15

3. The proposal of the Petitioner No. 1 is rejected basically relying

¶16

upon the Government Resolutions dated 23/10/2013 and 12/02/2015.

¶17

4. If the appointment of the Petitioner No. 1 is dated 21/06/2012,

¶18

then the subsequent Government Resolutions cannot be applied. The
position existing as on date the Petitioner No. 1 was appointed shall have
to be taken into consideration.

¶19

SEEMA Digitally signedby SEEMA KSHITIJYELKAR KSHITIJ YELKARDate: 2022.07.1411:24:04 +0530 Seema

¶20

1/2

¶21

WP 8063 of 2022.doc

¶22

5. Upon being asked that the proposal seems to have been filed in the year 2017, the learned counsel points out that since January 2013 the proposals were sent and reminders were given.

¶23

6. In view of that impugned Order is quashed and set aside.

¶24

7.The Education Officer shall reconsider the proposal seeking
approval to the appointment of the Petitioner No. 1 afresh. It shall
consider the position as existing as on the date the Petitioner No. 1 was
appointed and same shall be decided expeditiously, preferably within six
months.

¶25

8. Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶26

2/2

¶27

Seema

Farukhkhan Ikbal Pathan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary School Education Dept. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farukhkhan Ikbal Pathan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary School Education Dept. and Anr.

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

Iqra Education Society and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra Directorate of Primary Education and Ors.

Sou. Siddhi Sandip Kariwadekar Vs Ld Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad Sindhudurg and Ors.

Deepak Sakharam Kamble Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Police (H.Q-1) and Ors.

Kavita W/O. Kedar Deshpande Vs the State of Maharashtra through Prin. Secretary, Edu. and Sports Dept. and Ors.

Dattatray Balaso Tengale Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Chitralekha Devidas Narsale Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Prin. Secretary, Dept. of Edu. and Sports and Ors.