Disposed

Laxman Mahadu Pende v. Zilla Parishad, Washim, Thr. Its Chief Executive Officer, Washim

Bombay HC10 Jan 2024WP/82/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners serving as Civil Engineer Assistants claimed entitlement to Junior Engineer pay-scale after twelve years of continuous service, relying on an Aurangabad Division Bench judgment. The court disposed of the petitions directing the CEO, Zilla Parishad Washim to decide their pending representations in light of that judgment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to CEO, Zilla Parishad Washim to decide petitioners' pending representations per judgment dated 06/02/2020 in Chandrashekhar A. Khote; no costs.

Laxman Mahadu Pende Vs Zilla Parishad, Washim, Thr… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:309-DB 902-WP-82-24,84-024.odt

¶2

1/2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.82 OF 20 24

¶5

Laxman Mahadu Pende, Malegaon, Dist. Washim

¶6

-vs-

¶7

Zilla Parishad, Washim, Thr. Chief Executive Officer, Dist. Washim WITH WRIT PETITION NO.84 OF 20 24

¶8

Kashiram S/o Maroti Awate, Jagruti Nagar, Dist. Washim

¶9

-vs-

¶10

Zilla Parishad, Washim, Thr. Chief Executive Officer, Dist. Washim

¶11

Office notes, Office Memoranda of

¶12

Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and the Registrar's orders.

¶13

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶14

Shri N. R. Saboo, Advocate for Petitioners.

¶15

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

¶16

DATE : January 10, 2024

¶17

P. C.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶19

Considering the innocuous nature of order proposed to be passed, notice to the respondent in both the petitions is dispensed with.

¶20

The contentions are that since the petitioners were posted as Civil Engineer Assistant and they having completed twelve years continuous service on the said post, they are entitled for pay-scale of the Junior Engineer.

¶21

So as to substantiate the claim, support is drawn from the judgment of Division Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.6676/2017 (Chandrashekhar s/o Amrutrao Khote and ors. vs. Zilla Parishad, Washim and anr.) delivered on 06/02/2020.

¶22

We are informed that the petitioners’ representations in that regard are pending for consideration with the respondent-Zilla Parishad, Washim (page 29 of WP/82/2024 and page 31 of WP/84/2014 respectively).

¶23

902-WP-82-24,84-024.odt

¶24

2/2

¶25

In this backdrop we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions with a direction to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Washim to deal with the aforesaid representations of the petitioners and take a decision on the same in the backdrop of judgment/order dated 06/02/2020 in Chadrashekhar A. Khote (surpa) in accordance with law.

¶26

Order accordingly. No costs.

¶27

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

¶28

Asmita

Laxman Mahadu Pende v. Zilla Parishad, Washim, Thr. Its Chief Executive Officer, Washim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Mahadu Pende v. Zilla Parishad, Washim, Thr. Its Chief Executive Officer, Washim

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

Similar cases

Nidhi Sakshi Park Apartment, through Its Secretary Vs the Collector Amravati

Union of India through General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur and Others Vs Gudaru Yethi Rajulu and Others

Shri Mangesh S/O Ashokrao Mallelwar Vs State of Mahrashtra, in the Ministry of Revenue and Forest, through Its Secretary, Mumbai and 2

Kashiram S/O Maroti Awate Vs Zilla Parishad, Washim, Thr. Its Chief Executive Officer.

Sau. Shashikala W/O. Keshav Dhakite Vs the State of Maha., Thr. Principal Sect. Woman and Child Devp. Dept., Mumbai and Others

Ambesh Ramdulare Shrivastav vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary for Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Another