The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its. Secretary And Others v. Premraj S/O Tulshiram Wankhade And Another
1/1 wp501.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 501 OF 2016 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Water Resources and another -vsPremraj Tulshiram Wankhade and another ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mrs. Bharti Dangre, G.P. for the petitioners. Mr. N.R.Saboo, counsel for the respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 07.03.2016.
By this petition, the petitioner-State of Maharashtra impugns the orders of 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 by referring to the reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 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.
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 KHUNTE