Allowed

Madhav Kashinath Bhangare and Another v. Forest Department Ahmednagar through Deputy Conservator of Forest and Another

Bombay HC7 Jan 2023CA/154/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad disposed of a civil application filed by a Union seeking non-prosecution of underlying writ petitions. The court allowed the application permitting non-prosecution of the writ petition only to the extent of applicant No. 1, as he had already attained permanency.

What did the court decide?

Permission to applicants to not prosecute writ petition to extent of applicant no. 1.

Madhav Kashinath Bhangare and Another Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 / 2

¶2

907ca154-23

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.154 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.1747 OF 2012

¶5

MADHAV KASHINATH BHANGARE AND ANOTHER
VERSUS

¶6

FOREST DEPARTMENT AHMEDNAGAR THROUGH DEPUTY
CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND ANOTHER

¶7

– – –

¶8

Mr. Parag Vijay Barde, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. R.B. Bagul, AGP for the Respondent/State.

¶9

– – –

¶10

CORAM :SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED :JANUARY 07, 2023.

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

1.The petition challenges the common judgment and order
dated 6th November, 2008 passed by the learned Member, Industrial
Court, Aurangabad in complaint ULP Nos.37/1996, 140/1996,
141/1996, 34/1997, 35/1997, 395/1998 and 396/1998. The
complaint ULP was filed before the Industrial Court, Aurangabad by
Ahmednagar Zilla Van Kamgar Union on behalf its Members which
were enumerated in annexure “A” to the said complaint, seeking
permanency which came to be dismissed.

¶13

2.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the
Applicant No.1-Madhav Kashinath Bhangare herein, whose name
appears at Sr.No.3 at Annexure “A” to the complaint ULP

¶14

2 / 2 907ca154-23

¶15

No.37/1996, has been granted permanency by the respondents and
does not wish to prosecute further.

¶16

3.The petition has been filed by the Union on behalf of its
employee Member and since the Applicant No.1 has already received
benefit of permanency, the case of Applicant No.1 will not be
considered at the time of deciding the Writ Petition.

¶17

4.The Civil Application is accordingly allowed and the
applicants’ prayer as to non-prosecution of the writ petition is
permitted to the extent of Applicant no.1- Madhav Kashinath
Bhangare. The civil application is accordingly disposed of.

¶18

( SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. )

¶19

sa_mandwgad

Madhav Kashinath Bhangare and Another v. Forest Department Ahmednagar through Deputy Conservator of Forest and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhav Kashinath Bhangare and Another v. Forest Department Ahmednagar through Deputy Conservator of Forest and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pandurang Digambar Amsule Vs Ramkrushna Yamaji Satpute and Another

Shaikh Vazeer Shaikh Jamal Vs Shaikh Aziz Shaikh Jamal Since Deceased Thr Lrs Shaikh Sandu Shaikh Aziz

Sheshrao Balasaheb Ghogare and Another Vs Balasaheb Ambadas Ghogare and Others

Ganesh Shivsingh Dobhal Vs Rupakaur Ganesh Dobhal and Others

Balasaheb Nivritti Dighe and Another Vs Forest Department Ahmednagar through Deputy Conservator of Forest and Another

Vithoba Kisan Dharkar and Another Vs Satish Kisan Dharkar