Disposed

Pratik Mahadev Kumbhar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Apr 2024WP/5043/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition over cancellation of approval to a compassionate-basis school appointment. Court noted the Full Bench rule that non-approval alone cannot justify dispensing with services and that the Management must pay salary per schedule 'C'; no separate interim order passed.

What did the court decide?

No separate interim order; court held existing law suffices to protect salary; matter stood over to 20 June 2024.

Pratik Mahadev Kumbhar vs the State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

WP 5043.24.doc

¶2

¶3

JPP

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 5043OF 2024

¶6

Pratik Mahadev Kumbhar

¶7

… Petitioner

¶8

V/s.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sachin Hande and Poonam Pal i/b. Sachin Hande for the Petitioner Mr. Ratan L. Adhe i/b. Mr. Pankaj P. Deokar for Respondent No.3 Mr. K.S. Thorat, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 to 8

¶12

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & AMIT BORKAR, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 08 APRIL 2024

¶14

P.C. :-

¶15

The Petitioner will give notice to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and file affidavit of service.

¶16

Stand over to 20 June 2024 .

¶17

The learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that the approval was granted to the Petitioner’s

¶18

WP 5043.24.doc

¶19

¶20

appointment made on the compassionate basis upon the proposal submitted by the Management in favour of the Petitioner. Before the approval granted to the Petitioner’s appointment was cancelled by the impugned order both, the Petitioner and the Management, were heard.

¶21

The learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner prays for protection of service in the meanwhile. The Management has not challenged the order passed by the Deputy Director cancelling the approval. In the light of the decision of the Full Bench in the case of St. Ulai High School v/s. Shri Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh¹ , merely because the approval is not granted, that alone cannot be a ground for dispensing with services of the employee, and the consequence of the impugned order having not been challenged by the Management would be that the Management will have to pay the salary of the Petitioner as per schedule ‘C”. This position of law laid down by the Full Bench binds the Respondent – Management. Therefore, there is no need to pass any separate interim order till the next date.

¶22

AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶23

NITIN JAMDAR, J.

¶24

1 (2007) 1 Mh.LJ 597

Pratik Mahadev Kumbhar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratik Mahadev Kumbhar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Yamuna Mithun Bolake vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Anr.

Vijay Ganpati Amane and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Tembhurni through Its President, and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mukund Rajaram Chavan and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dhananjay Machhindra Nagane vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Aldel Education Trusts Thr. Its Chairman vs Pharmacy Council of India and Ors.