← Library
Bombay High CourtMCA/172/2018rejected at admission stage

Rani Laxmibai Junior College, Through Its Principal, Nagpur v. Anil S/O Manoharrao Shrirao And 2 Others

2018-02-20Hon'Ble Shri Justice B. P. Dharmadhikari,Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Swapna Joshi2 pages

2002mca172.18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 172 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3429 OF 2016 (Rani Laxmibai Junior College, Sawargaon thr. its Principal, Tah. Narkhed Dist. Nagpur vs. Anil s/o Manoharrao Shrirao & Ors.) _____________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

FEBRUARY 20, 2018.

Heard Shri Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the applicant - respondent No. 3 - management. 2.

The respondent - management has attempted to urge that Government Resolution dated 08.12.1995 looked into by this Court while delivering judgment on 15.01.2018 envisages selection grade. The contention is, the petitioners were claiming senior scale only.

3.

With the assistance of Shri Parchure, learned counsel for the respondent - employer and Shri S.M. Ukey, learned Additional G.P. for original respondent Nos. 1 & 2, we have perused the records.

4.

The respondent No. 1 - petitioner before this Court needed to be given senior scale with effect from 24.06.2011 and he completed training on 09.03.2015. This Court has found that in the wake of relaxation from training provided for in Government Resolution dated 19.01.2001, the petitioner needed to be given senior scale from 24.06.2011. The defence of the employer that service record of the petitioner was not proper, is evaluated in paras

2002mca172.18 4 & 5 and rejected.

5.

The directions in para 7 show that the petitioner is held entitled to senior scale from 24.06.2011. Thus, mentioning of Government Resolution dated 08.12.1995 or then no reference to the relevant Government Resolution dated 13.05.1999, has not materially affected the consideration of the controversy.

6.

We, therefore, find grievance in present MCA erroneous. Hence, rejected. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.