Allowed

Ganesh Nagorao Jumde and Others v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC13 Oct 2023WP/4571/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Nagpur allowed a writ petition challenging a denial of the second benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the authorities to examine entitlement and release the benefit within four months if eligible.

What did the court decide?

The order denying second benefit was set aside. Respondents directed to examine eligibility within eight weeks and release benefit within four months if entitled.

Ganesh Nagorao Jumde and Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-NAG:15132-DB

¶2

31-WP-4571-2021.odt 1

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4571 OF 2021

¶5

Ganesh Nagorao Jumde and others

¶6

vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mumbai and

¶8

ors.

¶9

Shri A.A.Dhawas, Advocate for petitioners.

¶10

Shri N.H.Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 4.

¶11

CORAM :- A.S.CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 13^th OCTOBER, 2023

¶12

P. C.

¶13

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

The challenge raised by the petitioners is to the communication dated 26.05.2020 by which they have been denied benefit of second time bound promotion by stating that as and when orders are received from the State Government, such benefit would be made admissible.

¶15

The petitioners had approached this Court earlier in Writ Petition No.5206 of 2018 seeking benefit of the first time bound promotion. The said writ petition was allowed on 09.07.2019 and a direction was issued to make available such first benefit to the petitioners. Undisputedly, the petitioners have received the first benefit in terms of the said order. The only reason indicated in the communication dated 26.05.2020 is that the orders in that regard are yet to be received from the State Government.

¶16

It is seen from the communication dated 17.03.2020 that has been issued by the Assistant Project Officer to the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Amravati that the petitioners have completed more than 24 years of service as on that date. It is to be noted that in the meanwhile, vide Government Resolution dated 02.03.2019 the Assured Career Progression Scheme has been modified. The benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme under the recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission is

¶17

31-WP-4571-2021.odt 2

¶18

admissible after a period of 10/20/30 years of service. The Scheme has been made applicable from 01.01.2016.

¶19

In view of aforesaid, we find that the following order would serve the interests of justice:

¶20

(i) The order dated 26.05.2020 issued by the respondent no.3-Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Amravati, is set aside.

¶21

(ii) The respondent nos. 3 and 4 shall examine entitlement and eligibility of the petitioners to receive the second benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme in the light of the Government Resolution dated 02.03.2019 and other relevant Government Resolutions. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 shall consider the aforesaid entitlement within a period of eight weeks of receiving copy of this order. If the petitioners are found entitled to receive such benefit, the same shall be released in their favour within a period of four months of such decision being taken.

¶22

Rule stands disposed of in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

¶23

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)

¶24

Andurkar.

Ganesh Nagorao Jumde and Others v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Nagorao Jumde and Others v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mumbai and Others

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

Rashtrasant Tukadoji Shikshan Sanstha, Neri, Chandrapur Thr. President, Suresh Dagoji Pise and Anr. Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Education (Higher Secondary), Mumbai and Ors.

Arun S/O Nagorao Gajbhiye Vs the State Cooperative Election Authority, Pune Thr. Its Secretary and Others

Sharad Namdeo Mandhare Vs Smt Archana Mende the Chief Officer, Nagar Parishad, Umred, Nagpur and Ors.

Rohini D/O Dewaji Kapgate Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Public Health, Mumba and Others

M/S. Ankit Construction, Thr. Partner, Shri. Kishor Kanhere Vs State of Maha., Thr. Its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Uco Bank, Throgh Its Chief Manager and Authorized Officer, Nagpur Vs New Age False Ceiling Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Directors, Manoj Shashiprakash Gupta and Others