Partly allowed

Dhanraj Tulshiram Randive v. State of Maha. Thr. Its Secretary, Dept. of Rural Development and Water Conservation Mumbai and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Jan 2024WP/4110/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bench quashed the order of reversion passed against the petitioner without a hearing or show-cause notice. The Court directed the petitioner to treat the order as a show-cause notice, submit a reply within four weeks, and appear for a personal hearing. The respondent was directed to pass a fresh order by 31-03-2024.

What did the court decide?

The order of reversion dated 06-07-2018 was quashed and set aside. The petitioner was directed to appear for a hearing on 29-02-2024 after submitting a reply. The respondent was directed to pass a fre

Dhanraj Tulshiram Randive Vs State of Maha… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:1208-DB

¶2

1 wp 4110.18.odt

¶3

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

¶4

Writ Petition No.4110/2018

¶5

(Dhanraj V State of Maharashtra and others)

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

Mr. V.D. Raut, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A.P. Thakre, Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr. S.M. Ukey, Addl.GP for respondent nos.1 and 3.

¶9

CORAM : Nitin W. Sambre & Abhay J. Mantri, JJ DATE : 24-01-2024.

¶10

The challenge is to the order of reversion passed

¶11

by the respondent-Chief Executive OfÏcer, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur on 06-07-2018.

¶12

The claim of the petitioner is considered as against one Mr. B.R. Chaykate who is held to be entitled for promotion to the post on which the petitioner was already accommodated.

¶13

The order of reversion is informed to have been passed without hearing or issuing notice to the petitioner.

¶14

The aforesaid factual matrix is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondents. At least to that effect, the learned Counsel for the respondents has failed to demonstrate that the petitioner was heard or put to notice before passing the said order. We are of the view, that the order impugned dated 06-07-2018, is not sustainable and is

¶15

2 wp 4110.18.odt

¶16

liable to be quashed and set aside. As such, the order dated 06-07-2018, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶17

We direct the petitioner to treat the order dated 06-07-2018 as show cause notice, and after submitting his reply to the respondent-Chief Executive OfÏcer within a period of four weeks from today, may appear before the said Authority personally for hearing on 29-02-2024.

¶18

We direct the respondent-Chief Executive OfÏcer to pass an order by 31-03-2024.

¶19

Petition is partly allowed in above terms. No costs.

¶20

( Abhay J. Mantri, J. ) ( Nitin W. Sambre, J. )

¶21

Deshmukh

Dhanraj Tulshiram Randive v. State of Maha. Thr. Its Secretary, Dept. of Rural Development and Water Conservation Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanraj Tulshiram Randive v. State of Maha. Thr. Its Secretary, Dept. of Rural Development and Water Conservation Mumbai and Anr.

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

Dinesh S/O Ganeshrao Hiwarale and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Sabir Khan Shabbir Khan Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and Others

Shri Shridhar S/O Shankarrao Hawale, Nagpur Vs State of Mah. Thr. Principal Secty., Mumbai and 2 Otrs

Courts on Its Own Motion Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Courts on Its Own Motion Vs Msedcl Offices, Maha. State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Mumbai and Others

Courts on Its Own Motion Vs Msedcl Offices, Maha. State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Mumbai and Others