Disposed

Kantikumar Laxmiprasad Sonkusare v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Urban Development, Mumbai and Another

Bombay HC29 Jan 2024WP/3095/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Nagpur Municipal Corporation to submit views within six weeks regarding the petitioner's pending increments. It ordered the State Government to take a final decision within four months and emphasized the necessity of hearing the petitioner before passing an adverse order.

What did the court decide?

Directing Nagpur Municipal Corporation to submit views within six weeks and State Government to take final decision within four months after hearing the petitioner.

Kantikumar Laxmiprasad Sonkusare Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 WP-3095-2022.odt

¶2

2024:BHC-NAG:1159

¶3

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

¶4

Writ Petition No.3095 of 2022

¶5

Kantikumar Laxmiprasad Sonkusare VersusState of Maharashtra and another

¶6

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

¶7

Shri P.V. Ghare, Counsel for Petitioner.
Ms N.P. Mehta, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent No.1.

¶8

Shri V.G. Lohia, holding for Shri A.S. Mehadia, Counsel for Respondent No.2.

¶9

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : 29th JANUARY,2024

¶10

1.The challenge raised in this petition is to the Government
Resolution/decision dated 1-8-2019 whereby the State Government in exercise
of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 451 of the Maharashtra Municipal
Corporations Act, 1949 (for short, ‘the Act of 1949’) temporarily suspended the
Resolution No.244 dated 2-7-2018 of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation
whereby three increments are granted to the petitioner.

¶11

2.The said decision of the State Government further provides that the
Nagpur Municipal Corporation and its Commissioner are required to submit their
views to the State Government, as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 415
of the Act of 1949.

¶12

3.Shri V.G. Lohia, Advocate, holding for Shri A.S. Mehadia, learned counsel
for the respondent No.2, seeks time to take instructions in the matter.

¶13

4.As against above, Shri P.V. Ghare, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submits that let the State Government take a final decision within a reasonable
period and it shall be open for the Nagpur Municipal Corporation and its
Commissioner to submit their views within a reasonable period.

¶14

5.We have appreciated the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner. We are of the view that once by the Resolution No.244
dated 2-7-2018 of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation if three increments are
granted to the petitioner, least that is expected is to hear the petitioner in case
the said Resolution is to be cancelled or annulled.

¶15

2 WP-3095-2022.odt

¶16

6.In that view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the
petition by giving an opportunity to the Nagpur Municipal Corporation and its
Commissioner to submit their views within a period of six weeks from today;
failing which the State Government shall proceed ahead to take a final decision
in the matter, as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 451 of the Act of
1949. Let the State Government take a final decision in the matter within a
period of four months from today. Needless to mention that the petitioner
should be heard before passing an adverse order.

¶17

7. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. No costs.

¶18

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶19

LANJEWAR

Kantikumar Laxmiprasad Sonkusare v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Urban Development, Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kantikumar Laxmiprasad Sonkusare v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Urban Development, Mumbai and Another

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

Irshad Ahmed Ansari S/O Tar Mohammad Ansari Vs the Commissioner, Nagpur Metro Region Development Authority (Nmrda), Nagpur and Another

Surendra Singh S/O Gurudutt Singh Vs the Commissioner, Nagpur Metro Region Development Authority (Nmrda), Nagpur and Another

Ku. Shrushti D/O Ganesh Dikondwar Vs Joint Commissioner and Vice-Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Commmittee, Nagpur and Others

Ms. Chetana D/O Shri. Sureshrao Wanare Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Education and Sports Department, Mumbai and Others

Prashant Shankarrao Gajadiwar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. Mumbai and Others

Vilas S/O Dewaji Mekalwar Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Chief Secy., (Forest), Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Others