Bombay High CourtWP/566/2016dismissedrule discharged

The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary, And Another v. Bhanudas S/O Haribhau Borode And Another

2016-03-08Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.M. Deshpande2 pages

WP566-16 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 566/2016 (THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER VERSUS BHANUDAS HARIBHAU BORODE & ANOTHER) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mrs. B.H. Dangre, G.P. for the petitioners.

Shri N.R. Saboo, counsel for the R-1.

CORAM : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK AND V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE : MARCH 08 , 2016.

By this petition, the petitioners-State of Maharashtra impugn the common order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 13.03.2015 allowing the original application filed by the respondent No.1 and directing the petitioners to consider the case of the respondent No.1 for time bound promotion as well as benefits of the Assured Promotions Scheme, in the circumstances of the case.

Shri Saboo, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, states that a challenge was raised by the State of Maharashtra to similar orders passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad and the writ petitions filed by the State of Maharashtra were dismissed. It is stated that the matter was carried by the State of Maharashtra to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petitions, but the Special Leave Petitions were also dismissed.

Mrs. Dangre, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the petitioners, does not dispute the statements made on behalf of the respondent No.1.

WP566-16 In view of the aforesaid, for the reasons recorded in the orders in the writ petitions by which similar challenge was rejected, we dismiss this writ petition with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE APTE