← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/708/2018partly allowed

Kishor S/O Vitthalrao Sangidwar v. State Of Maharashtra, Through Principle Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai And 2 Other

2021-10-01Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sunil B. Shukre,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Anil S. Kilor2 pages

24-WP 708-181/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.708 OF 2018 PETITIONER :- Kishor Vitthalrao Sangidwar, aged about 53 years, Occup. Service, R/o Dadabhai Nawroji Ward, Ballarpur, Distt.

Chandrapur, Mob. No.9067060670.

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENTS :-1.

State of Maharashtra, through Principle Secretary Urban Development Department, Mantraya, Mumbai.

2.

Director of Municipal Administration, Sir Pochkhanwala Marg, Worli, Mumbai.

3.

The Municipal Council, Ballarpur through its Chief Officer, Ballarpur, Dist.

Chandrapur.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.M.P. Khajanchi, counsel for the petitioner. Ms.N.P. Mehta, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. M.I.Dhatrak, counsel for respondent No.3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : SUNIL B.SHUKRE & ANIL S.KILOR, JJ.

DATE : 01.10 .20 .

O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per :Sunil B.Shukre, J.) 1.

Heard.

2..

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Kavita

24-WP 708-182/2 3.

It is seen from the reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 that in the meeting of General body of Municipal Council Ballarpur, Dist. Chandrapur held on 26.03.2015, an unanimous resolution was passed to send the proposal to respondent Nos.1 and 2 for sanctioning the benefit of higher pay grade scale to the petitioner and accordingly, the proposal was forwarded to the respondent No.2 on 23.07.2015 seeking the sanction to the same.

4.

It appears that the proposal sent to respondent No.2 is still pending. It is now high time that the proposal is decided by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to be decided the proposal dated 23.07.2015 in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the order.

5.

Rule accordingly. No costs.

(ANIL S. KILOR,J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE,J) Kavita