← Library
Bombay High CourtMCA/861/2024rejected

Walmik S/O Uttam Avhad v. The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, School Education And Sport Dept., Mumbai And Others

2026-01-13Hon'Ble Smt. Justice M. S. Jawalkar , Hon'Ble Shri Justice Nandesh Shankarrao Deshpande2 pages

(1) 901 mca 861-2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (MCA) NO. 861 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7649 OF 2023 Walmik S/o Uttam Avhad Vs.

The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, School Education and Sport Department, Mantralaya and others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A.G. Ambetkar, Advocate for applicant through V.C. Shri H.D. Futane, AGP for non-applicant/State CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ..

DATED : 13.01.2026 Heard Shri Ambetkar, learned Counsel for the applicant.

2.

This is an application seeking review of judgment/ order dated 02.09.2024, in Writ Petition No. 7649/2023, in which the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under :

"(4) In our considered opinion, merely because the Administrator has been appointed, that cannot be considered as an obstacle to grant subsistence allowance to the Petitioner in terms of Rule 34 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private

(2) 901 mca 861-2024 Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. The Petition is, therefore, allowed by directing the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to grant subsistence allowance to the Petitioner in terms of Rule 34 of the MEPS Rules, 1981."

3.

We see no error apparent on the face of record and particularly, in view of prayer clause (C) of the application for review which seeks restoration of the original status of the petition which, in our view, cannot be done in review application, more particularly when the scope of review is limited to see if there is any error apparent on the face of record. The challenge in the review is misconceived and the application is therefore rejected.

(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) Jayashree....