Disposed

Dr. Kailash Kashinath Vairalkar v. State of Maharashtra, Throguh Its Secretary, Public Health Department, Mumbai and 3 Others

Bombay HC3 Aug 2023WP/2375/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Medical Officer, claimed entitlement to a higher grade pay based on a GR and a tribunal judgment. The High Court directed respondents to consider pending representations with an opportunity of hearing and decided within four weeks. Petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider representations with hearing opportunity and decide within four weeks.

Dr. Kailash Kashinath Vairalkar Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1/2

¶2

0308wp2375.19

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2375 OF 2019

¶5

 (Dr. Kailash Kashinath Vairalkar vs. State of Maharashtra and others)

¶6

________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶7

Shri N.S. Warulkar, Advocate for petitioner.
Smt. S.S. Jachak, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
nos.1 and 2.

¶8

Shri T.M. Zaheer, Advocate for respondent nos.3 and 4.

¶9

 --------

¶10

 CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR AND MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
 DATED : AUGUST 3, 2023

¶11

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶12

2)The petitioner, who was appointed as a Medical
Officer with Zilla Parishad, Buldhana, claims entitlement to
appropriate pay scale especially in the light of the Government
Resolution dated 17/10/2014 issued by the respondent no.1 –
Public Health Department. In the said Government Resolution,
name of the petitioner is shown at serial no.515 and according
to the petitioner, in view of the judgment of the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.469/2012
(Dr. Anilkumar Ramkrishna Tarale and others vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others) decided on 4/1/2022, he is entitled to
the grade pay of Rs.5400/- from 18/7/2013 onwards. In the
service book of the petitioner, grade pay of Rs.6600/- has been
shown to be granted from 1/7/2006. In this regard, the
petitioner has made representations to the District Health

¶13

0308wp2375.19

¶14

2/2

¶15

Officer, Zilla Parishad, Buldhana on 21/1/2017 as well as Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Buldhana on 23/3/2018.

¶16

3)Considering the alternate prayer made in the writ
petition, the respondent nos.3 and 4 are directed to consider
the aforesaid representations in the light of the request as
made. The said representations be decided after giving
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner with liberty to place all
relevant documents before the said respondents. Necessary
decision be taken within a period of four weeks of receiving
copy of this order. The decision taken be communicated to the
petitioner. Needless to state that if the grievance of the
petitioner subsists, he is free to take recourse to appropriate
remedy in accordance with law. All contentions of the parties
are kept open. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶17

 JUDGE JUDGE

¶18

khj

¶19

Digitally Signed By:KAMAL HUNDRAJ JESWANI Signing Date:04.08.2023 16:09

Dr. Kailash Kashinath Vairalkar v. State of Maharashtra, Throguh Its Secretary, Public Health Department, Mumbai and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Kailash Kashinath Vairalkar v. State of Maharashtra, Throguh Its Secretary, Public Health Department, Mumbai and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashwini W/O Suraj Wankhede Vs Election Commission of India, New Delhi and Others

National Cons. Environment and Forest Prot. Forum Thr. President, Manishsingh M. Chauhan Vs Mr.Ashwin Mudgal, Collector, Nagpur and Others

Asha Girdharilal Karhade Vs Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others

Waman Tukaram Kodape and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Mumbai and Others

Keshav S/O Dauji Bhong Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Chief Secretary, General Administration Dept. Mumbai and Other

Abdul Mujeeb Abdul Jabbar and Another Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and Others