Partly allowed

Vikrant Komaldas Gondane v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC19 Jan 2024WP/5573/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order recalls a previous direction to decide a grievance. It directs the Management to pay the petitioner the balance subsistence allowance immediately. It further directs the District Social Welfare Officer to decide the claim for probation salary within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direct order to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to pay balance subsistence allowance within two weeks; remand of probation salary claim to RWO within three weeks.

Vikrant Komaldas Gondane Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 27 wp 5573-2021

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.5573/2021

¶4

Vikrant Komaldas Gondane Vs.

¶5

State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others

¶6

¶7

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

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

¶10

Shri N.S. Warulkar, Advocate for petitioner Ms Prachi Joshi, AGP for respondent No.1 Shri R.N. Ghuge, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5

¶11

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ.. DATED : 19/01/2024

¶12

The grievance of the petitioner is for recalling the order dated 04.01.2024, by which, we have directed the District Social Welfare Officer, Bhandara to decide the issue.

¶13

The learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed an affidavit on record, stating that so far as the claim for subsistence allowance is concerned, it has been decided as Rs.1,70,751/- out of which an amount of Rs.63,998/- already stands paid. The balance amount of Rs.1,06,753/- is directed to be paid by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 who are the Management. The liability of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to pay the entire subsistence allowance is contained in the report dated 07.10.2021 (page 35) and also the statement in para 3 of the affidavit-inreply filed by respondent No.3. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 though claim that they have raised the grievance before the respondent No.3 regarding the

¶14

2 27 wp 5573-2021

¶15

liability to pay this amount on account of absenteeism of the petitioner, however that plea which will have to be prosecuted and demonstrated by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 before the respondent No.3. In case, the said plea is accepted then whatever amount is found not to be due and payable can always be required by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to be redeposited. However, till such time, the liability of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to pay the subsistence allowance does not go away.

¶16

In that view of the matter, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are directed to pay balance of the subsistence allowance to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. This would, however, be without prejudice to the right of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to claim any recovery in case the above plea of absenteeism is accepted by the respondent No.3.

¶17

In so far as the claim for the salary for the period of probation is concerned, the District Social Welfare Officer/respondent No.3 shall decide the said claim, which is already raised before him, within a period of three weeks from today.

¶18

The petitioner shall appear before the respondent No.3 on 22.01.2024 and place the copy of order before him to appraising the same. Petition is, therefore, disposed of in above terms. No costs.

¶19

JUDGE

¶20

JUDGE

¶21

R.S. Sahare

Vikrant Komaldas Gondane v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikrant Komaldas Gondane v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Mumbai and Others

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

Shri Swami Samartha Developers and Builders, Nagpur Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 4(4), Income Tax Office, Nagpur and Others

Ashok Enterprises a Partnership Firm, Thr. Authorized Partner, Vijay Balkisan Gangan vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Dept. Mumbai and Ors.

102, Rugna Vahika Wahan Chalak Sanghatan, Walgaon, Thr. President, Pradeep Sahebrao Pawar vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department Public Health, Mumbai and Others

Dipak S/O. Wandevrao Dange Vs Nagpur Improvement Trust, Thr. Chairman, Nagpur and Others

Murari Kumar Suman S/O. Ramashish Prasad Singh Vs Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya Hindi Vishwavidyalaya, Thr. Registrar, Wardha and Another

Subhash Baban Mohitkar vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretory Rural Develoment Department Mantralaya Mumbai