Bombay High CourtWP/62/2016dispossed offdismiss for default

Shri. Gokulsingh S/O. Dalpat Chavan And Others v. State Of Maha., Through Its Secretary, Dept. Of Marketing Textile And Co-Operation, Mumbai And Othe

2016-04-20Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.M. Deshpande2 pages

wp62.16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.62/2016 Shri Gokulsingh s/o Dalpat Chavan and others ..vs.. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Department of Marketing Textile and Co-operation and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R. D. Karode, Advocate for petitioners.

Mr. Nikhil Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE : APRIL 20, 2016 Heard.

Mr. Karode, the learned counsel for the petitioners, states that the issue involved in this writ petition was also involved in a bunch of the writ petitions bearing Writ Petition No.6401/2015 and others and this Court has, by an order dated 21.03.2016, disposed of those writ petitions by directing the respondents to continue the set of petitioners that were employed before 25.07.2015 and to deal with their services as stipulated in the Government policy. It is stated that liberty was granted to the respondents to take an appropriate policy decision and modify the policy decision that was impugned in the writ petition, in accordance with the law. It is stated that a similar order could be passed in this writ petition also. Mr. Nikhil Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the statements made on behalf of the petitioners. Hence, for the reasons recorded in the order dated 21.03.2016 in the bunch of writ petitions bearing Writ Petition

wp62.16.odt No.6401/2015 and others, we direct the respondents to continue the petitioners who were in the employment on 24.07.2015 and deal with their services as per the policy decision. It would be open to the respondents to take an appropriate decision and modify the policy decision that is impugned. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms by keeping the contentions raised in this writ petition, open.

Order accordingly. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE kahale