← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/10177/2016disposed offdismissed for default

Kantabai Chaburao Jadhav v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2019-11-28Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prasanna B. Varale,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Anil S. Kilor2 pages

10177.16wp (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10177 OF 2016 Kantabai Chaburao Jadhav, Age: 48 years, Occu: Service, R/o. Kukana, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar ..PETITIONER

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2.

The Superintendent, Salary and Provident Fund Department, Dist. Ahmednagar ..RESPONDENTS Mr H. D. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner;

Mr S. S. Dande, Advocate for respondents CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

DATE : 28th November, 2019 ORAL ORDER:

Heard Mr Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the prayers (B), (C) and (D) of the petition and submitted that the petitioner was appointed on 19th December, 2003 i.e. prior to 1st November, 2005. He then submitted that the issue raised in the

10177.16wp (2) petition is squarely covered by the judgment and order of the Division Bench at Principal Seat at Bombay, in the matter of Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., reported in 2019 (3) Mh.L.J. 903. He then submitted that the petitioner would fall in the category of a reply to Question No.3 of para 37 of the said judgment and order. He further submitted that a similarly circumstanced petitioner was before this Court in Writ Petition No.662 of 2017 and by referring to the judgment and order in the matter of Deshmukh Dilipkumar (referred supra), the Division Bench of this Court, on 23rd September, 2019 disposed of the said writ petition.

3.

Mr Dande, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader is not disputing the position of law as reflected in the judgment and order of the Division Bench at Principal Seat at Bombay in the matter of Deshmukh Dilipkumar (referred supra).

4.

In view of aforesaid facts, the petition needs no fresh decision and the same is disposed of accordingly.

(ANIL S. KILOR, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.) sjk