Kum. Sarita D/O Uttamrao Mokle v. The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Finance Dept. Mumbai And Others

1 wp1608.17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1608 OF 2017 (KU. SARITA UTTAMRAO MOKLE..VS.. STATE OF MAH. THR. FINANCE DEPARTMENT & OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court'

s or Judge'

s orders appearances, Court'

s orders of directions and Registrar'

s orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.P.Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioner.

Ms Tajwar Khan, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. CORAM : Z.A.HAQ AND S.M.MODAK, JJ.

DATED : JANUARY 07, 2020.

Heard.

The petitioner has prayed for declaration that he is entitled for pension as per the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and his service conditions are not governed by the Government Resolutions dated 31st October 2005 and 29th November 2010.

The learned A.G.P. has pointed out that the issue is covered by the judgment given by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Deshmukh vs. State of Mah., reported in 2019(3) Mh.L.J. 903 and the petitioner is now not entitled to contend that he is entitled for the reliefs as sought by him in the petition. Though the learned Advocate for the petitioner tried to distinguish his case on facts, we find that the matter is covered by the judgment given by the Full Bench. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE RRaut..