Naglaxmi Narsingrao Tirmanwar v. The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Higher And Technical Education Dept., Mumbai And Another

1 W.P.No.3630.2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3630 OF 2021 Dr. Naglaxmi Narsingrao Tirmanwar, ..VS..

The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Anr., --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court'

s or Judge'

s orders appearances, Court'

s orders of directions and Registrar'

s orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs K. S. Joshi, Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

DATED : 21.09.2021 1.

Heard Shri Parchure, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.

The case of the the petitioner is that she is entitled to advance increments in terms of Clause 11 of the Government Resolution dated 11.12.2019 and in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dr. Dashrath S/o Baliram Jadhao and Ors., Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., Writ Petition No. 3300 of 2010, decided on 15.03.2018 and even then the respondents have deprived the petitioner of the same.

3.

It appears that the petitioner is willing to make a suitable representation to the respondent No.2 in the matter to convince him that as per the law laid down by

2 W.P.No.3630.2021 this Court and also the aforestated Government Resolution, the claim of the petitioner as regards grant of advance increments is admissible. We, therefore, grant liberty to the petitioner to make a suitable representation to the respondent No.2 and with this liberty, we also grant leave, as sought, on instructions by learned counsel for the petitioner, to withdraw the petition. 4.

If representation is made by the petitioner to the respondent No.2 within one week from the date of the order, same shall be decided in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

5.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE Kirtak