Smt. Dr. Sadhana Chandrakant Bhandari v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS.

cao-107-2018.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.107 OF 2018 IN REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.8530 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.723 OF 2017 Dr. Sadhana Chandrakant Bhandari

...Petitioner

vs.

The State of Maharashtra and Others

...Respondents

Mr. Sanjay Kulkarni, for the Petitioner Mr. S.L. Babar, AGP for Respondent No. 1.-State. Mr. Rajendra Anbhule, for Respondent No. 4 CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & PRAKASH NAIK, JJ.

DATE :

APRIL 06, 2018 (IN CHAMBER) P.C.:

.

Heard learned counsel for the Applicant on the Civil Application No. 107 of 2018.

2.

For the reasons stated in the Civil Application, the delay in filing the Review Petition is condoned.

3.

The Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. 4.

Having heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as also learned A.G.P and learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4, we dispose of this Review Petition by observing that the Vishal Parekar 1/2

cao-107-2018.doc Grievance Committee of Respondent No. 4 shall decide the Petitioner's grievance in regard to her transfer as also the fact that she has wrongly been treated to be relieved, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case not later than 15th June, 2018, as we have been informed by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 that the Committee will be functional from 1st May, 2018. 5.

We are aware of the fact that time has been extended for a period of six months by the Division Bench of this Court vide order passed in Civil Application No. 651 of 2017, but in view of the fact that the Petitioner is not able to serve at either of the places i.e. original place as well as the transferred place, we are fixing this time limit on the basis of the argument made by the learned counsel for the fourth Respondent to that effect. 6.

The Committee shall issue notice to the private Respondents i.e. Institute and College immediately after its constitution.

7.

All the contentions of the Petitioner as also Respondents are kept open.

8.

The Review Petition is disposed of as such.

(PRAKASH NAIK, J.) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.) Vishal Parekar 2/2