Medical Superintendent,Rural Hospital,Mahabaleshwa v. Laky Nandu Chavan
k 1/3 501 wp 8801.23 group as.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8801 OF 2003 Medical Superintendent, Rural Hospital & Anr.
....Petitioners V/S Rajashree Lakshman Yadav ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8566 OF 2003 Medical Superintendent, Rural Hospital & Anr.
....Petitioners V/S Shobatai Malhari Khade ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8524 OF 2003 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2768 OF 2011 Medical Superintendent, Rural Hospital & Anr.
....Petitioners V/S Meghana Bhimrao Mane ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8480 OF 2003 Medical Superintendent, Rural Hospital & Anr.
....Petitioners V/S Anil Pandurang Dhebe ....Respondent WITH 1 of
k 2/3 501 wp 8801.23 group as.doc WRIT PETITION NO.8421 OF 2003 The Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital & Anr.
....Petitioners V/S Dhanashri Bharat Sankpal ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8576 OF 2003 The Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital & Anr.
....Petitioners V/S Rajaram Chagan Awale ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8562 OF 2003 Medical Superintendent, Rural Hospital ....Petitioner V/S Laky Nandu Chavan ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8558 OF 2003 The Medical Superintendent, Rural Hospital & Anr.
....Petitioners V/S Balasaheb Vishnu Kharmate ....Respondent _________ Ms. Vaishali S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the Petitioners/State. Mr. Suresh Pakale, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Nilesh Desai for Respondents. __________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 27 JUNE 2024.
2 of
k 3/3 501 wp 8801.23 group as.doc P.C.:
Mentioned. Not on Board. Taken on Production Board. The Petition has been allowed by judgment pronounced on 26 June 2024 and the judgment and order passed by the Member, Industrial Court has been set aside.
Mr. Pakale, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondentsemployees would submit that he could not remain present while judgment and order was pronounced on 26 June 2024. He would pray that the judgment and order be stayed for a period of 12 weeks to enable the Respondents-employees to test the judgment and order before the Supreme Court. The request is opposed by Ms. Nimbalkar, AGP appearing for the Petitioners/State. Considering the position that Respondents-employees are in service since the years 2000-2001, the judgment and order is stayed for a period of 10 weeks only to the extent of continuance of Respondents-employees in service. It is however clarified that so far as the direction for permanency is concerned, the judgment and order is not stayed.
by SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Date:
2024.06.28 15:04:06 +0530 (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM 3 of