Dismissed

Union of India through the General Manager Central Railway and Ors. v. Ravindra Sheley

Bombay HC18 Apr 2023WP/4470/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of this writ petition challenging a Tribunal order granting the respondent promotional benefits. Finding no case for interference as the promotion order had been validly issued and the Tribunal acted correctly, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; no costs.

What the court decided

Union of India through the General Manager… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

(49)-WP-4470-23.doc

BGP

1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.4470 of 2023

¶6

Digitally signed by BALAJI BALAJIGOVINDRAO GOVINDRAOPANCHAL PANCHAL Date: 2023.04.21 10:18:15 +0530

¶7

Union of India & Ors.

V/s.

Ravindra Sheley

.....Petitioners

.....Respondent

Ms. Smita Thakur i/by Suresh Kumar, for the Petitioners. Mr. Vicky Nagrani, for the Respondent.

¶13

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

¶14

DATE : 18^th APRIL, 2023.

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

The petitioners assail the order of the Tribunal thereby allowing the Original Application filed by the present respondent and directing the present petitioners to grant consequential benefits of promotion to the post of Head TNC from 23.05.2008.

¶17

Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that though the order was issued on 23.05.2008, the request was made to retain the respondent and that the promotion order was not handed over to him. Subsequently, another order was issued on 2^nd April, 2009 promoting him as Head TNC and the respondent is promoted w.ef. 2^nd April, 2009. It is only after ten months from 23.05.2008, the respondent made a representation as an afterthought. It is only on 2^nd April, 2009, actual order of promotion is issued to the respondent.

¶18

We have also heard learned advocate for the respondent.

¶19

BGP

¶20

2/2 (49)-WP-4470-23.doc

¶21

It is not disputed that the promotion order was issued on 23.05.2008. The Tribunal has observed that the order dated 02.04.2009 is just an amendment to the earlier promotion order dated 23.05.2008. The respondent was promoted by the petitioners, but subsequently did not relieve him and asked to continue to discharge work of earlier post. The post of Head TNC was promotional post. The Tribunal has considered the said aspect in its correct perspective. In light of that, no case for interference is made out.

¶22

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

¶23

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

Union of India through the General Manager Central Railway and Ors. v. Ravindra Sheley

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Union of India through the General Manager Central Railway and Ors. v. Ravindra Sheley

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

Suraj Prakash Pawar Vs the Director General of Police, and Ors.

Shri. Pramod Bhanudas Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra through Prin. Secretary, State Excise Dept. and Ors.

Sudha Rajesh Mirajkar @ Sudha Vyankoba Vadone Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Social Welfare Dept. and Ors.

Saurabh Nagnath Pawar Vs the Union of India Thru the Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors.

Ram Naresh Paswan Vs Union of India Thr the General Manager and Ors.

Sanjeevkumar Baburao Wadikar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Prin. Secretary, (Home) Transport Dept. and Ors.