Allowed

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

Bombay HC7 Jan 2023CA/155/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Benches at Aurangabad, decided an application seeking permission to discontinue the writ petition regarding the first applicant. The court allowed the application permitting non-prosecution of the writ as to the first applicant who had already obtained permanency.

What did the court decide?

The civil application was allowed permitting non-prosecution of the writ petition in the capacity of Applicant No.1- Balasaheb Nivritti Dighe.

Balasaheb Nivritti Dighe and Another Vs Forest… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 / 2

¶2

907ca155-23

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.155 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.1747 OF 2012

¶5

BALASAHEB NIVRITTI DIGHE AND ANOTHER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

FOREST DEPARTMENT AHMEDNAGAR THROUGH DEPUTY
CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND ANOTHER

¶8

– – –

¶9

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

¶10

– – –

¶11

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

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

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.

¶14

2.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the
Applicant No.1-Balasaheb Nivritti Dighe herein, whose name appears
at Sr.No.8 at Annexure “A” to the complaint ULP No.37/1996, has

¶15

2 / 2

¶16

907ca155-23

¶17

been granted permanency by the respondents and does not wish to
prosecute further.

¶18

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.

¶19

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- Balasaheb Nivritti Dighe.
The civil application is accordingly disposed of.

¶20

( SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. )

¶21

sa_mandwgad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balasaheb Nivritti Dighe 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

Issues for consideration

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

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

Vithoba Kisan Dharkar and Another Vs Satish Kisan Dharkar