Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, heard finally. 2. This Petition is filed with following prayer: By issuing a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions respondent No.1-Municipal commissioner, Aurangabad, may please be required to pay full `Pension' and other retrial (sic) benefits, in the light of `Decision of Standing Committee (Resolution No. 106/09)' i.e. Appellate Authority, Dated 18th August 2009, within stipulated period, with interest. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner was working as `Ward Officer' of Municipal Corporation. There was some dispute regarding recovery of amounts from Contractors. With allegations of irregularities, the petitioner was suspended by order dated 7th August, 2006 by framing charges. By order dated 22nd September, 2006, the Inquiry Officer was appointed. It is the case of the petitioner that, without considering...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Shinde, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally at admission stage. 2. This petition has been filed with the following prayers: B-1) Quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dtd. 27.08.2014 passed by Maharashtra Prathmik Shikshan Parishad, Mumbai and Order dtd. 19.09.2014 passed by the Education Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Z.P. Aurangabad, the petitioners may be allowed to get their regular pension and other benefits as usual. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed under the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad and were promoted subsequently as Kendra Pramukhs and on completing their tenure, retired on superannuation on different dates. 4. The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources formulated a scheme called as SarvaShiksha Abhiyan. The said scheme was given for implementation to the State Government. Budgetary provision has been made for giving appointments on contract basis and pay them honorarium. The pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition takes exception to the selection process adopted by Respondent No.1 for filling up the posts of Store Keeper, advertised vide Exh.A to the Petition. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the selection process conducted by Respondent No.1 is contrary to the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court and by giving go by to the merit criteria. It is submitted that, the petitioner, who participated in selection process for the appointment on the post of Store Keeper, secured 45 marks out of 70 marks. It is submitted that, the petitioner stood first in merit list in written examination. It is submitted that, though it was not provided in the Government Resolution to have the oral interview, contrary to Government Resolution dated 19th October, 2007 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Maharashtra, oral interviews were conducted and marks were assigned to such oral interview. Since petitioner has secured highest marks...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Shinde, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: The petitioner was appointed in the office of the respondent No.4 as Junior Clerk on 4th March, 1985. His service record is unblemished. He was promoted on the post of Store Keeper on 23rd April, 1998. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondent State issued various Government Resolutions dated 1.11.1977, 28.11.1979, 17.5.1980 and 11.2.1992 and decided to give exemption from passing Divisional Examination for higher pay scale or promotion to those employees who were working as Government servant and who have completed 45 years of age. Accordingly, the rules were amended. The respondent issued circular providing for exemption for passing professional examination to the employees who have completed 45 years of age. It is further case of the petitioner that he completed 45 years of age and also 12 years service in the year, 2005 and, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith heard with the consent of the parties. 3. This Petition is filed with following prayers: A] By issue of Writ of certiorari or orders or directions in the nature of writ of certiorari Honble Court may quash and set aside the order dtd. 18/04/2013 at Exhibit-F, issued by the respondent no.1 C.E.O. cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as Agriculture Officer and appointing respondent no.3 in place of petitioner. C] By issuing Writ of mandamus or directions or orders in the nature of writ of mandamus the respondent Nos.1 be directed to permit the petitioner to resume the post of Agriculture Officer in Panchayat Samiti, Lohara; and for that purpose issue necessary orders. The relevant facts for the purpose of deciding present Petition, as disclosed in the Memo of the Petition are as under: 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that, the Petitioner possessed B.Sc. [Agri] degree, and therefore, was eligible for appointment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Shinde, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner by way of this petition challenges the order dated 30th October, 2013 issued by the Caste Validity Committee No.1, Nashik Division, Nashik in File No. NAVI/JAPRAPS/GACHANDDA/MAHAR/INVALID/2013-14/2950/Nashik invalidating the claim of the petitioner. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the entry in the revenue record i.e. Village Form No.14 of the year, 1938 shows that the caste of petitioner's grandfather as Mahar (SC-37). In the year, 2001, the petitioner had taken admission in primary school of Zilla Parishad and his school leaving certificate shows his caste as Hindu Mahar. The school leaving certificate of the petitioner after passing 10th standard shows his caste as Hindu Mahar. It is contended that the caste certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner on 10.6.2011 as belonging to Mahar caste. The petitioner has been granted admission to 1st Year Eng...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith heard with the consent of the parties. 3. This Writ Petition is filed with following prayers: A] For a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 herein to issue the Appointment Order in favour of the petitioner on the post of Class-III/Class-IV employee in Zilla Parishad, Nanded w.e.f. May 2008 along with all consequential benefits including salary, seniority, backwages etc. B] For a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein to take appropriate legal action against the concerned Erring Officer on account of not giving the appointment to the petitioner on the post of Class-III/Class-IV employee in Zilla Parishad, Nanded. C] For a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 herein to decide the petitioners representation dated 07.01.2013 and 25.09.2013 and to ...
Tag this Judgment!