Kishor Damodar Pol v. State Of Maharashtra Urban Development Ministry And ANR.

26. WP 871 of 2021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 871 OF 2021 Kishor Damodar Pol

...Petitioner

vs.

State of Maharashtra Urban Development Ministry and Anr.

...Respondents

Mr. Nitin Kulkarni - for the Petitioner Mr. R. S. Pawar - AGP for the Respondent No. 1. Mr. Abhijeet Kulkarni - for the Respondent No.2. CORAM :

PRASANNA B. VARALE & S. M. MODAK, JJ.

DATE :

18th NOVEMBER, 2021 PER COURT:- .

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2.

Learned counsel Mr. Abhijeet Kulkarni, is representing Respondent No. 2, Municipal Commissioner Pune Municipal Corporation, Shivaji Nagar Pune.

3.

Petitioner was an employee of Respondent No. 2 and after serving the Respondent No. 2-Corporation, retired on superannuation on 30th September 2019.

4.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner has invited our attention to the copies of the representations submitted to Respondent No. 2 placed on record, at page numbers 13 to 20 i.e. Exh.-A collectively, submits that on more than 5 occasions, the Petitioner had by SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR Date:

2021.11.30 14:07:00 +0530 SEEMA KSHITIJ YELKAR Seema 1/2

26. WP 871 of 2021.doc approached the authority reiterating the request for grant of pensionary benefits as well as other benefits such as gratuity etc. and also then forwarded legal notice and in spite of all this exchange of communications including the legal notice, no heed is paid. As such the Petitioner is before this court seeking direction to the Respondent No. 2 to decide the representation at the earliest. This being the Limited grievance.

5.

Considering the limited grievance raised in the petition we deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition with direction to the Respondent No. 2 to decide the representations of the Petitioner in general and particularly the latest representation in time i.e. representation dated 12/06/2020, as early as possible and not later than eight weeks from the date of order of this Court. 6.

We make it clear that this Court had not made any observations on the merits of the petition.

7.

The petition is disposed of with above directions. 8.

All concerned to act upon a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Registry of this Court.

9.

The learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 should communicate the order to Respondent No. 2 at the earliest. (S. M. MODAK, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.) Seema 2/2