Allowed

Murlidhar Shaligram Raut v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary for Rural Development Dept., Mumbai and Another

Bombay HC26 Nov 2024CP/230/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the respondent to pay the petitioner's unpaid travel allowance within two weeks, noting that all other terminal benefits had been received. The associated contempt petition was discharged as the contempt was purged by the compliance direction.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay travelling allowance within two weeks

Murlidhar Shaligram Raut v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary for Rural Development Dept., Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murlidhar Shaligram Raut v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary for Rural Development Dept., Mumbai and Another

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

Miss. Diksha D/O Kedarnath Sao vs Sumant Bhange, Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Shekhar Ghanshyam Janbandhu vs the State of Maha. Thr. Sec. Ministry of Industries Energy and Labour, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors.

Munsi S/O Motiram Kasdekar and Others vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Nanda Wd/O Bandu Jamkar Vs Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Project, Akola and Others

Lalit S/O. Ganesh Chavhan and Another Vs State Common Entrance Test Cell, Mumbai Thr. Commissioner and Competent Authority and Anr.

Ku. Sanjivani D/O. Tulshidas Rajput, Thr. Her Father, Shri. Tulshidas Sheshrao Rajput Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secy. for General Administration Dept., Mumbai and Ors.