Urmila Bhimji Maru v. State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary

(9)WP-5317-2024.doc rajshree

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5317 OF 2024 Urmila Bhimji Maru ] ..

Petitioner vs.

State of Maharashtra ] Through UGH The Secretary & Ors. ] ..

Respondents Mr.Ramesh Ramamurthy a/w Saikumar Ramamurthy for the Petitioner. Ms.Jaymala Ostwal, Addl. G.P. a/w Usha Rahi, AGP for the State. CORAM :

BHARATI DANGRE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ DATE :

2nd JANUARY, 2025.

P.C.

1.

The Petitioner is aggrieved by non-implementation of the order dated 03/09/2024 passed by the Grievance Committee, University of Mumbai, thereby setting aside the suspension order issued to the Petitioner on 04/04/2024 and directing the College i.e. the Respondent, to allow the Petitioner to serve regularly, with a further direction to pay her salary regularly, with effect from the receipt of the order by the College.

The Grievance Committee, however, permitted the College to proceed with enquiry and conclude it within a period of three months. by RAJSHREE KISHOR MORE Date:

2025.01.02 18:55:24 +0530 RAJSHREE KISHOR MORE 1/2

(9)WP-5317-2024.doc 2.

The Petition is filed being aggrieved by the aforesaid direction of continuing with the enquiry, as according to the Petitioner, an identically situated employee, Manjusha Patwardhan, who had approached the Grievance Committee with an identical grievance, being the enquiry proceedings have been dropped.

Another grievance raised in the petition is about non implementation of direction No.1 when the Grievance Committee set aside the suspension order and directed that the Petitioner to be taken on the roll as an employee and also directed for payment of the salary regularly.

According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, there is no compliance of this direction despite issuance of notice to the College, which has received a response that they are in the process of taking action.

3.

Since we are convinced that there is non- compliance of direction No.1 and since it is the case of the Petitioner that the enquiry proceedings itself ought to have been dropped, we deem it appropriate to issue notice to Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, by making it returnable on 27/01/2025. Hamdast granted. In addition to the court notice, the notice is also permitted to be served through private mode of service. The learned AGP waive service of notice for Respondent No.1. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.) 2/2