Partly allowed

Mahendra Shamrao Mahajan and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Bombay HC29 Aug 2024WP/5269/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad partly allowed a writ petition. The court quashed and set aside the petitioner's termination order. It directed re-instatement with back wages and compliance with SIT report recommendations within 180 days, aligning the case with a prior group decision.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice/order of termination was quashed and set aside. Terminated candidates were to be deemed reinstated with continuity and back wages.

Mahendra Shamrao Mahajan and Others Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:20019-DB

¶2

909-WP-5269-2024.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5269 OF 2024

¶5

MAHENDRA SHAMRAO MAHAJAN AND OTHERS VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Mr. S. R. Barlinge, Advocate for the Petitioners Mrs V. N. Patil – Jadhav, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – State

¶8

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 29.08.2024

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

There is no dispute that these Petitioners are identically placed with the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.5505 of 2024 (Anil Pandit Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others)

¶12

and a group of Petitions, which were decided by order dated 21.06.2024. A speaking order has been passed and the directions are set out below paragraph 7 (a) to (g), read thus:-

¶13

“(a) The Competent Committee, as prescribed in clause 10, would issue notices to the persons whose names are mentioned in the SIT report or those persons who are noticed by the respective Zilla Parishads, to be ineligible for appointment as per the conclusions of the SIT report, irrespective whether their name has or has not

1 of 3

(( 2 ))

909-WP-5269-2024

appeared in the report directly, so as to be heard by the Committee in pursuance to such notice of hearing.

¶18

(b) The Petitioners would appear before the Committee in terms of the notices received by them. We permit such individuals to tender their written submissions, if desired.

¶19

(c) After such hearing is concluded, the Committee shall refer to the material available with reference to the individual employees and their written submissions/material placed before the Committee by such employees and draw an appropriate conclusion. Thereafter, the Committee shall issue appropriate orders. If any person is aggrieved by such order, he/she would be at liberty avail of a remedy as is permissible in law.

¶20

(d) Since the impugned orders are set aside, those candidates/Petitioners who have been terminated from service, shall be deemed to be reinstated with continuity along with back-wages.

¶21

(e) Considering the request of all the litigating parties before us, this exercise should be completed expeditiously or within 180 days, to be computed with effect from 01.07.2024, since the Petitioners are also suffering anxiety and rigors of litigation.

¶22

(f) The Petitioners assure us that they would render whole hearted cooperation and would not make attempts to delay the matter as they are also interested in an early resolution of this issue.

¶23

(g) In the event, the Committee or the State Authorities find that they are short of time, they are at liberty to move an application through the office of the Government Pleader, for seeking extension.”

2 of 3

(( 3 ))

909-WP-5269-2024

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed .

¶28

The impugned notice/order of termination stands quashed and set aside.

¶29

Insofar as the condition 7(e) is concerned, the 180 days

¶30

shall be computed with effect from the passing of this order.

¶31

[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ]

¶32

SMS

¶33

3 of 3

Mahendra Shamrao Mahajan and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Shamrao Mahajan and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary 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

Bhagwat Nagraj Patil Deceased through Lrs Bayjabai Bhagwat Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Archana Amol Modi Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its District Collector and Another

Gulab Budhan Patel Deceased through His Lrs Taj Bi Shekh Gulab Musalman Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Ambubai Govind Gajare Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Vipul Baldev Rajput Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vikas Govindrao Badamwad Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others