← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/6310/2022disposed off

Balu Bhagwan Mule v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

2022-06-22Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Anil L. Pansare2 pages

*1* 971wp6310o22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6310 OF 2022 BALU BHAGWAN MULE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for the Petitioner : Shri Aghav Avinash D. AGP for the Respondents/ State : Shri S.G. Karlekar ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

DATE :- 22nd June, 2022 Per Court :- 1.

Undisputedly, the petitioner has succeeded before the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No. 55/2000. Due to non compliance of the award, he approached the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.27/2004. He even succeeded before this Court in Writ Petition No.4406/2008 and we are informed that he has also succeeded before the Honourable Supreme Court in SLP No.11001/2010.

2.

The petitioner claims benefits of the Kalelkar settlement. He contends that the Executive Engineer, PWD,

*2* 971wp6310o22 Osmanabad, has addressed respondent No.1 by forwarding a proposal for clearing the benefits under the Kalelkar settlement. The said proposal is dated 03.01.2017 at page 15 in the petition paper book.

3.

The petitioner prays that a direction be issued to respondent No.1 to decide the said proposal and extend the benefits of the Kalelkar settlement, expeditiously. 4.

The learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the proposal is forwarded to the Desk Officer, Service-5, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. He is not aware as to whether, the said proposal is still pending or decided.

5.

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed off with the direction to respondent No.1 to consider the proposal of the petitioner as forwarded to the said office by respondent No.3 dated 03.01.2017, as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 15.09.2022. If the petitioner's entitlement is upheld, consequential benefits shall be extended to him within eight weeks thereafter.

kps (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)