Madhavrao Kashinath Nagalgave v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others
1 33WP7552.2018&Ors
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7552 OF 2018 Balaji Raghunath Satpute .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
.... Respondents .............
Shri. D. R. Irale Patil, Advocate for the petitioner Shri. P. S. Patil, Addl. GP for respondent/State Shri. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 4 ...............
WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10763 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7552 OF 2018 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 9904 OF 2018 Udhav Shamrao Biradar .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
.... Respondents .............
Shri. D. R. Irale Patil, Advocate for the petitioner Shri. P. S. Patil, Addl. GP for respondent/State Shri. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 3 & 4 ...............
AND WRIT PETITION NO. 9905 OF 2018 Vasant S/o. Bhimrao Kendre .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
.... Respondents
2 33WP7552.2018&Ors .............
Shri. D. R. Irale Patil, Advocate for the petitioner Shri. P. S. Patil, Addl. GP for respondent/State Shri. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 4 ...............
WRIT PETITION NO. 9910 OF 2018 Madhavrao Kashinath Nagalgave .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
.... Respondents .............
Shri. D. R. Irale Patil, Advocate for the petitioner Shri. P. S. Patil, Addl. GP for respondent/State Shri. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 3 & 4 ...............
WRIT PETITION NO. 9913 OF 2018 Milind Sangram Kambale .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
.... Respondents .............
Shri. D. R. Irale Patil, Advocate for the petitioner Shri. P. S. Patil, Addl. GP for respondent/State Shri. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 3 & 4 ...............
WRIT PETITION NO. 8963 OF 2018 Vishnu S/o. Namdeo Surekar .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
.... Respondents .............
Shri. D. R. Irale Patil, Advocate for the petitioner Shri. P. S. Patil, Addl. GP for respondent/State Shri. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 3 & 4 ...............
3 33WP7552.2018&Ors CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.
DATE : 13TH MARCH, 2019 ORAL ORDER:
.
The petitioner challenges the impugned order whereby the re-fixation of pay has been done and recovery is also claimed against the petitioner.
2.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are passed without notice to the petitioners and without hearing the petitioners.
3.
Shri Sachin S. Deshmukh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 does not dispute that the notices to the petitioners were not issued prior to passing order of re-fixation of pay. He further submits that, said orders are rightly passed in tune with the Government Resolutions and the circulars.
4.
It is trite that when orders prejudicial to the interest of any party is passed, the affected party is required to be given notice. In the present case, the impugned orders are passed without notice to the petitioners.
4 33WP7552.2018&Ors 5.
In light of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondents if they want to effect re-fixation of pay, they shall issue notice to the petitioners, call for their say and then only take a decision.
6.
With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
7.
In view of disposal of petitions, nothing survives in the connected civil application and same stands disposed of. [ A. M. DHAVALE ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE JUDGE Punde