Rajkumar S/O Yashwantrao Malve v. State Of Maha. Thr. Sec.,Ministry Of Cooperation, Marketing And Textile Dept, Mumbai And Others

1caw2104.25 1caw2104.25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (W) NO. 2104/2025 CIVIL APPLICATION (W) NO. 2104/2025 IN IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1980/2024 WRIT PETITION NO. 1980/2024 Rajkumar Yashwantrao Malve Rajkumar Yashwantrao Malve ..versus..

..versus..

State of Maharashtra & others State of Maharashtra & others ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders and Registrar's orders ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● Shri A.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner(s) Shri A.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner(s) Shri J.Y. Ghurde, Shri J.Y. Ghurde, AGP AGP for the Respondent/State for the Respondent/State Shri M.V. Samarth, Sr. Adv a/b Shri V.B. Bhise, Adv for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 Shri M.V. Samarth, Sr. Adv a/b Shri V.B. Bhise, Adv for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3

CORAM

CORAM:-:- M.S. JAWALKAR, J.

M.S. JAWALKAR, J.

NOVEMBER 21, NOVEMBER 21, .

On oral request, leave is granted to amend the prayer clause of the Civil Application.

(2) By this Application, the Petitioner is seeking clarification of the order dated 28/04/2025 passed by this Court. It is submitted that by the said order, the termination of the Petitioner was set aside and the Agricultural Produce Market Committee was directed to pay the subsistence allowance as per the Rules.

(3) In my considered opinion, the question of payment of subsistence allowance is reflecting, as there is a grievance that subsistence allowance during the enquiry was not paid as per the provisions of law. ..

..

A ..

..

A

1caw2104.25 1caw2104.25 However, on setting aside of the termination, the Petitioner is entitled to be reinstated. Even if the Respondents want to suspend the Petitioner, they have to follow Rule 100(6) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967. Thus, the earlier order dated 28/04/2025 is modified with insertion of Clause 5(a) after Clause 5 of the operative order as under:- "5(a).

The Respondents shall reinstate the Petitioner in his original post. If at all the Respondents are willing to suspend the Petitioner during enquiry, they may take recourse to the provisions of law i.e. Rule 100(6) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967." (4) With the above clarification, the Application stands disposed of. (M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) (M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) ..

..

A ..

..

A