Bombay High CourtWP/3766/2016dismissedrule discharged

Ku. Snehalata Madhukar Yenurkar v. State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, Dept. Of Urban Development And 3 Others

2016-12-20Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Swapna Joshi2 pages

WP3766-16 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3766/2016 (SNEHALATA MADHUKAR YENURKAR VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.N. Shende, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.P. Deshpande, Additional Government Pleader for the R-1 to 3. Shri R.D. Bhuibhar, counsel for the R-4.

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : DECEMBER 20 , 2016.

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the action of the respondent no.4 in utilizing the services of the petitioner on ad-hoc/part time basis. The petitioner has sought a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to the regularization of the services.

Shri Bhuibhar, the learned counsel for the respondent no.4, states that an identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in Writ Petition No.4246 of 2016 and this Court has, by the judgment dated 28.07.2016, that is reported in 2016(6) Mh.L.J. 346 (Shirshal Rajendra Potdukhe & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others), dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner therein. It is stated that since the facts involved in the present petition and the petition that is dismissed are identical, a similar order may be passed, on parity.

WP3766-16 In view of the statements recorded hereinabove and for the reasons recorded in the judgment reported in 2016(6) Mh.L.J. 346 (Shirshal Rajendra Potdukhe & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others), we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE APTE