Allowed

Pravin Wasudeo Morey v. State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Jan 2023WP/13353/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay set aside an order refusing service benefits because the underlying validation proceeding remained pending, violating a prior directive. The court directed the petitioner to appear before the Scrutiny Committee to obtain a vigilance report and ordered the Committee to decide the matter expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The impugned communication was set aside; the petitioner directed to appear on January 17, 2023 to obtain the vigilance report; the Committee directed to decide the proceeding within three months.

Pravin Wasudeo Morey Vs State of Maharashtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

9-WP-13353-2022

¶2

pdp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 13353 OF 2022

¶5

Pravin Wasudeo Morey .. Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. R. K. Mendadkar a/w Ms. Komal Gaikwad and Jayshri Mendadkar for petitioner.

¶9

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Govt. Pleader a/w Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for State.

¶10

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, ACTING CJ. & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶11

DATE: JANUARY 3, 2023

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the validation proceeding is pending with respondent no.2/Committee, the impugned communication has been issued refusing to grant service benefits to the petitioner and to place the petitioner on supernumerary post.

¶14

2. We have heard the learned AGP also. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the order dated 17^th January, 2020 in Writ Petition No. 385 of 2020. In the said writ petition, this Court had directed the Committee to decide the proceeding within six months.

¶15

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of the said order, the proceeding is not decided as yet. The petitioner also gave a notice of contempt to the Committee. Vigilance is conducted. However, the copy of the vigilance report is not served upon the petitioner.

¶16

¶17

9-WP-13353-2022

¶18

5. This Court by order dated 17^th January, 2020 in Writ Petition No. 385 of 2020 directed the Committee to decide the proceeding within six months and further directed that till the decision on the petitioner’s caste claim is given by the Committee, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner on the ground that he has not submitted tribe validity certificate.

¶19

6. If the proceeding is still pending, then the impugned communication is improper in the light of the order of this Court dated 17^th January, 2020 in Writ Petition No. 385 of 2020.

¶20

7. Relying upon the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the validation proceeding is still pending, we pass the following order: -

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

(a) The petitioner shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 17^th January, 2023. On the said date, the petitioner shall obtain the copy of the vigilance report. The petitioner shall file reply to the vigilance report within 15 days of the receipt of the vigilance report. The Committee shall, thereafter, decide the proceeding expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of appearance of the petitioner before it.

¶23

(b) The petitioner shall cooperate in expeditious disposal of the said proceeding. In case, the petitioner seeks undue adjournments, the Committee is entitled to proceed further in the matter.

¶24

¶25

¶26

9-WP-13353-2022

¶27

(d) The employer may take further course of action depending upon the judgment that may be delivered in the pending proceeding by the Committee.

¶28

8. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶29

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶30

PRAVINDASHARATHPANDIT Digitallysigned byPRAVINDASHARATHPANDITDate:2023.01.0319:07:00+0530

¶31

Pravin Wasudeo Morey v. State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravin Wasudeo Morey v. State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Vishwas Kedar Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Mr. Rakesh Vasant Salunke Vs the Commissioner of State Excise

Shri. Harishchandra Shankar Kumbharkar Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Employees Provident Fund Commissioner and Anr.

Nandkumar Constrcuctions Vs the Superintendent Engineer, Pw Circle, Kolhapur and Ors.

Lakshaman Kailas Dudhal Vs Union of India Thr the General Manager and Ors.

Namdev Baban More Vs the Comissioner Milk Scheme Dept. Mumbai and Ors.