Disposed

Suresh S/O Manohar Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC13 Mar 2023NMW/419/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court restored the writ petition regarding budget categories and pension matters, directed authorities to decide pending applications on merits within four months, and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of the writ petition; direction to authorities to decide pending applications within four months; disposal of the petition with no costs.

Suresh S/O Manohar Thakur Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

51.419.19-nmw.docx

¶2

Digitally signed by BASAVRAJ BASAVRAJGURAPPA GURAPPAPATIL PATIL Date: 2023.03.15 13:15:03 +0530

¶3

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

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.419 OF 2019 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 32 OF 2019

¶6

Suresh s/o. Manohar Thakur ….. Applicant / Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Sushant Yeramwar for the Applicant / Petitioner Mr. Kedar Dighe, AGP for Respondent No.7

¶10

CORAM: S.V.GANGAPURWALA, ACJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶11

DATED : MARCH 13, 2023

¶12

P.C.

¶13

The Notice of Motion is filed for restoration of the Writ Petition

¶14

dismissed for non removal of office objection.

¶15

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondents.

¶16

For the reasons stated in the Notice of Motion, the Writ Petition is restored to its original position.

¶17

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the

¶18

Petitioner was employed by Respondent Nos.2 to 4 from Thakar,

1/3

Basavraj

51.419.19-nmw.docx

Nmadic Tribe category, however, subsequently, Thakar is brought in Scheduled Tribe category. Proposal of the Petitioner for validation is not decided by the Committee.

¶23

The Petitioner has retired from service. It is submitted that the Petitioner is receiving the pension so also the Petitioner is paid the amount of the provident fund, however, leave encashment and gratuity is withheld. The learned Counsel submits that the proposal is already moved to treat the Petitioner from open category. Same is pending with the Government. The proposal has been forwarded by Respondent Nos.2 to 4 (Page No.24 of the Writ Petition) to the Government.

¶24

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has also filed an Application with Respondent Nos.2 to 4 for release of gratuity and leave encashment in view of the subsequent policy of the State.

¶25

In case the proposal (Page No.24 of the Writ Petition) of the Petitioner forwarded by the Municipal Corporation, Mumbai is pending with Respondent No.1, then Respondent No.1 shall take decision upon its own merits in accordance with law, preferably within four months.

2/3

Basavraj

51.419.19-nmw.docx

Respondent No.2 to 4 may decide the Application for release of gratuity and leave encashment on its own merits, expeditiously, preferably within four months.

¶30

The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶31

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J)

¶32

(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶33

3/3

¶34

Basavraj

Suresh S/O Manohar Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh S/O Manohar Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

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

Universal Cables Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Naee Roshni Social Organisation Vs Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authoirty and Anr.

Shri. Gaurav Suresh Karande Vs the Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission (Ms) Mumbai and Ors.

Joshi Shivshankar Jatashankar Vs District Collector, Mumbai Suburban District and 4 Ors.

Sangeeta Bhimnath Surve Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Prakash S/O Sopan Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra , Dept. of Tribal Development Thou Secretary