Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : May-06-2016
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. A vital issue emerges in this petition:- "Whether under Rule 16(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 ( MEPS Rules for short), issuance of a notice to the temporary / probationer employee before arriving at a conclusion that he/she has voluntarily abandoned employment would be a necessity?" 5. Considering the conspectus of the matter, I had invited the learned Advocates practicing in service law to render their assistance in this matter. I have thus heard the learned Advocates for the litigating sides, as well as, those learned Advocates. 6. The petitioner / management has challenged the judgment and order dated 24.9.2015, delivered by the School Tribunal, Aurangabad, by which, Appeal No. 5 of 2013, filed by the appellant / employee Respondent No.1 herein, has been allowed an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jun-07-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition takes exception to the impugned judgment and order dated 8th May, 2013, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench at Mumbai [for short 'CAT'] in Original application No.217/2013. There is also prayer for quashing and setting aside the order of termination of the services of the petitioner issued by the Commissioner of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan, New Delhi. Further direction is sought to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the employment. It is further prayed to hold and declare that Article 81 [B] of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalaya, is ultra vires to Article 14 of the constitution of India. 2. The CAT has extensively referred the facts of the case in the impugned judgment, and therefore, we do not feel it necessary to reproduce the said facts; as and when it is necessary we will make a reference to the relevant facts from the impugned judgment. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Aug-12-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Mahatma Phule Agriculture University, Rahuri, District Ahmednagar has preferred one group of Writ Petitions and the identically placed Respondents/Daily Wage Employees in the said petitions have also filed the second group of Writ Petitions wherein the Agriculture University is the Respondent. For the sake of brevity, the Agriculture University in these matters shall be referred to as the University and the Daily Wage Employees, who are Respondents in the petitions filed by the University and are Petitioners in their own group of petitions, shall be referred to as the Workers . 3. While issuing notice, this Court by it s order dated 22.04.2016 had directed that the amount deposited by the Mahatma Phule Agriculture University, Rahuri with the Appellate Authority (PGA) shall not be disbursed until further orders. 4. The University is aggrieved by the common judgment dated 20.10....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Oct-25-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant Original accused no.3, challenging the judgment and Order dated 21.03.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur in Sessions Case No.277/2012 (Old No.319/2009), thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC ) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for 6 months. Facts of prosecution case, in brief, are as under: 2. On 30.05.2009, accused no.1 Vitthal lodged the report at Police Station Waluj (Exh.60) alleging that his daughter-in-law deceased Swati has not woke up as usual in the morning, and when he tried to awaken her she was not responding, therefore, he took her to the Hospital where the Medical Officer found her dead. On his report, A.D. bearing No.15/2009 was registered. 3. PSI Suresh Bhale (PW-5) conducted the inquiry of A.D. He sent dead body for post mortem examinati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Feb-24-2016
Per Court: 1. The first proceeding is filed against judgment and Award of Claim Petition No.19 of 2012 and the second proceeding is filed against Judgment and Award of Claim Petition No. 1122 of 2011. Both the claim petitions were pending before Claims Tribunal, Dhule. The Tribunal has fastened the liability to pay compensation on the insurance company and so the insurance company has filed the appeals. Both the sides are heard. 2. The challenge of the insurance company is on the limited point viz. the liability in respect of deceased who were in transport vehicle. It is the case of insurance company that both the deceased persons were present in the transport vehicle as passengers and so risk of such persons was not covered under the policy. Meager amount of compensation is given by the Tribunal by presuming notional income as Rs.3,000/- in both the cases when the accident took place in the year 2011 and so the challenge is not on the point of quantum. 3. It is the case of claimants f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jun-09-2016
1. This Jail Appeal is by Appellant-original accused (hereafter referred as accused ) against his conviction in Sessions Case No.121 of 2013, awarded by Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule on 26th December 2014. The accused has been convicted to ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC in brief), and fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for two months. He has also been convicted under Section 201 of IPC to rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for ten days. Under Section 506 of the IPC, he has been convicted to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently and the fine amount, if realized, has been directed to be paid to the prosecutrix as compensation. Thus, this Appeal. 2. In a nutshell, the case of prosecution can be stated to be as follows: (A) Prosecutrix in this matter is a rustic ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Aug-11-2016
V.L. Achliya, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dt.23.11.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.25/2011 by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, Dist. Beed thereby convicting the appellants No.1 and 2 under Sections 302 read with 34 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellant No.2 is also held guilty of offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.200/-. In default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. 2. In brief, the facts leading to filing of the present appeal are summarized as under:- The appellants were charge-sheeted and prosecuted to face charge u/s 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") and appellant No.2 was also prosecuted for committing offence punishabl...
Tag this Judgment!