Mumbai Aurangabad Court July 2016 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, L ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This matter has been heard at length on 25/07/2016 and today. 2. The petitioner/Corporation is aggrieved by the judgment of the Labour Court dated 24/07/2008, by which Complaint (ULP) No.31/2003, filed by the respondent, has been allowed and the Labour Court has passed the following order: 1. Complaint is allowed. 2. It is declared that the respondents have engaged in unfair labour practice as per Item 1 (a and b) of Schedule IV of M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act and respondents should desist from the same. 3. The respondents are directed to reinstate and absorb the complainant by accepting his proposal of reinstatement even after resignation from service by virtue of circular dtd.04/04/1981 and precedents followed by the respondents on the same scale of driver till he attains the age of retirement. 4. The services of complainant be treated as continued from 01/02/1999 on the same scale of Rs.4,720/- and he be paid all the differences of wages and that wages from 01/02/1999...
Kailash Bhaskarrao Deshmukh Vs. Aurangabad Zilla Parishad Karmachari S ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27/10/2015 passed by the Respondent temporarily dismissing the petitioner pending disciplinary proceedings. He is also aggrieved by the order dated 19/05/2016 by which his appeal has been dismissed. 3. I have considered the extensive submissions of the learned Advocates. 4. A short issue has been raised for the consideration of this Court as to whether a delinquent employee can be 'temporarily dismissed' from service pending disciplinary proceedings for the period during which the enquiry is to be conducted. 5. I am astonished to note that, the respondent, by order dated 27/10/2015, has initiated a departmental enquiry against the petitioner by appointing an Auditor (Class II), Co-operative Society (Consumer), Aurangabad as an Enquiry Officer and in the same order of appointing of an Enquiry Officer, the petitioner has been temporari...
Anil Sudam Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal S ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by Respondent No.3/ Education Officer dated 28.12.2015 by which the 5th Respondent has been shown to be senior to the Petitioner and as such, the latter has been placed at Sr.No.2 in the seniority list. 3. I have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocates for the Petitioner and Respondent No.5, as well as the submissions of the learned AGP on behalf of the State Authorities and the Education Department. 4. The undisputed factors are being summarized as under: (a) The 5th Respondent was appointed on 16.07.1985 as an Assistant Teacher by considering his qualification of M.Sc.. (b) In June, 1987, the 5th Respondent acquired the qualification of Diploma in Higher Education (DHE). (c) DHE was given the equivalence of B.Ed. for the period 1983 to 1988 by the State Government. (d) The Petitioner was appointed as an Assis...
Mangala Vs. President, Manav Samaj Unnati Mandal and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.11.1996 passed by the School Tribunal, Nashik by which Appeal No.32/1996 filed by her was dismissed. 2. This petition was admitted on 17.02.1997. 3. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length on 19.07.2016, 20.07.2016, 21.07.2016 and today. 4. The submissions of Shri Mantri, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, can be summarized as follows: (a) The Petitioner had passed her SSC when she was appointed on 01.06.1987 as an Assistant Teacher. (b) For three years, she had not completed her postal Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) which was to be completed by correspondence course. (c) Her first application for being admitted to the postal D.Ed. course is dated 21.01.1991 which was rejected by Respondent No.5/ Deputy Director of Education. (d) The Petitioner challenged the order of the Deputy Director by filing R.C.S. No.202/1992. (e) By judgment dated 29.04.1995, the said Civil Suit was di...
Shridhar and Others Vs. Bajirao and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-22-2016
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.186/1983 which was pending in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Ambajogai, District Beed. The appeal was filed by original defendant No.2, purchaser against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.139/1977 which was pending in the court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambajogai. The suit filed for relief of partition by the present appellant against the coparcener and the purchaser was decreed in their favour by the trial Court and this decision is set aside by the District Court and the transaction is protected. Both the sides are heard. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the proceeding can be stated as follows :- 2. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 were minor on the date of the suit and they are sons of defendant.1 Bajirao. Plaintiff No.3 is the mother of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and the wife of defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 Shivaji is purchaser of one suit property fro...
Sharda Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary Depar ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-21-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition takes exception to the impugned order dated 4th May 2009 issued by Respondent No.3. There is further prayer to issue directions to the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the service and grant continuity of service, back wages, and other ancillary benefits. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by Respondent No.3 on 4th May, 2009, thereby terminating the services of the petitioner is without adherence to the provisions of Rule 78(6) of the Maharashtra Police Rules (Manual), 1999. The said Rule clearly provides that one month's notice before removal of service is mandatory or before removal of service departmental enquiry should be conducted against the government servant. But in the instant case before issuing order dated 4th May, 2009, no procedure laid down in the above rule and sub-rule is followed by the Respondents. In fact the petitioner completed near about continuous more than 10 years ...
Dr. Dinkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. This Petition is filed with the following prayers: B) By issue of writ of mandamus or any other writ of like nature, the respondent No.2 Corporation be directed to release the pensionary benefits with interest for causing delay in making payment of the same within period of two weeks. C) It be held and declared that, the action of Corporation seeking suspension / rescission of the resolutions passed by the standing committee and general body by invoking powers contemplated U/sec. 451 of the Bombay Provincial and Municipal Corporation Act is without authority of law and void abinitio. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner came to be appointed as a Medical Officer of Health in the respondent Corporation on 21.04.1983. The petitioner, since then, discharged his duties honestly and sincerely to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors. The petitioner wa...
Syed Asad Vs. The State of Maharashtra through Secretary Education Dep ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. The background facts leading for filing the Writ Petition are as under: It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.6236/2013 (Syed Asad s/o. Syed Yusuf Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others), seeking directions to the respondent herein to appoint him on compassionate ground in the place of his father, who died during the course of employment with respondent no.8 College. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by the High Court, thereby giving directions to the respondent management to appoint the petitioner in class-IV category on compassionate ground in the light of the scheme of the Department of Education dated 31.12.2002 and also in view of the directives issued by the Joint Director. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed in Class-IV category on compassionate ground on 18.02.2014. The petitioner s proposal seeking approval t...
Dinkar Hanumant Dokhe Vs. Saibaba Sansthan Vishwastha Vyavastha
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
Sangitrao S. Patil, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2. The petitioner, who was serving as a Ward-Boy with the respondent since 1978, has been suspended on 9th July, 2014 on the allegations of committing theft of cash amount while counting the donations received by the respondent. An FIR No. I-113/2014 came to be registered against the petitioner in Shirdi Police Station for the offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, a criminal case bearing Regular Criminal Case (R.C.C.) No. 225 of 2014 has been instituted against the petitioner in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Rahata for the said offence. The said case is still pending. 3. The respondent initiated a regular disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner and served chargesheet on him on 14th July, 2014. The said enquiry is being conducted by the Enquiry Officer, namely, Advoc...
Sachin Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary Rural ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-19-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers: C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or directions and quash and set aside the final selection list dated 10/12/2015 (Exh.D) published by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 i.e. District Selection Committee, Jalna for the post of Junior Assistant (Clerk), reserved for handicapped (Deaf and Dumb) category. CA) This Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and quash and set aside the appointment order dated 21/01/2016 issued by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in favour of respondent No.5 i.e. Mr. Datta S/o Shivajirao Pawar and direct the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to issue appointment order for the post of Junior Assistant (Clerk) from reserved category for handicapped (Dumb and Deaf) person in favour of petitioner, within stipulated period. 2. The relevant facts for filing this Writ Petition are as under: The petitioner belongs to N.T.D. category and handicapped (dea...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »