Bombay High Court
Dr. Mrs. Vaishali W/O. Rajkumar ... vs Lok Gyan Prasarak Sanstha ... on 3 October, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
0310WP4356.15-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4356 OF 2015
PETITIONERS :- 1. Dr. Mrs. Vaishali W/o Rajkumar Das, Aged
about 40 years, Occu.: Nil, R/o Plot No.287,
Nirupama Loksewa Nagar, Bhamti, Opp.
Mokhare College, Nagpur.
2. Suchita W/o Indrajeet Amgaonkar, Aged
about 39 years, Occu.: Nil, R/o 75,
Prathamesh Apartments, S.E.Railway
ig Colony, Pratap Nagar, Nagpur-22.
3. Smt. Manjusha Deoraoji Ambatkar, Aged
about 33 years, Occu.: Nil, R/o Plot No.92,
Gajanan Dham, Near Sahakar Nagar, Khamla
Road, Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. Lok Gyan Prasarak Sanstha, Chandrapur,
Through its President.
2. Lok Gyan Prasarak Sanstha, Chandrapur,
Through its Secretary.
Respondent Nos.1 & 2 R/o C/o Smt.
Vandana Digambar Haste, Plot No.17,
Besides Bank of Maharashtra, South
Ambazari Road, Laxmi Nagar, Nagpur.
3. The Dean / Principal, C/o Shri S. K.
Banerjee Niharika College of Physiotherapy,
3rd / 4th Floor, Madhu-Madhav Towers,
Laxmi Bhavan Square, West High Court
Road, Nagpur.
4. The Registrar, Maharashtra University of
Health Sciences, Nashik, Dindori Road,
Mhasrul, Nashik-422 004.
5. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
132-A, Ridge Road, Raghuji Nagar, Tukdoji
Putala, Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2016 00:44:03 :::
0310WP4356.15-Judgment 2/4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.V. P. Marpakwar, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.B.G.Kulkarni, counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. U.M.Aurangabadkar, counsel for the respondent No.3.
Mr. Abhijeet Deshpande, counsel fro the respondent No.4
Mr. S.D.Sirpurkar, counsel for the respondent No.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : 03.10.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition
is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties,
at the stage of admission.
The only prayer made by the petitioners in this writ
petition is for a direction against the respondents to implement the
order of the Grievance Committee.
Shri Aurangabadkar, the learned counsel for the
respondent No.3, states that the liability of the respondent No.3 was
only to the extent of 25% and the amount towards the liability is paid
by the respondent No.3 to the petitioners.
The learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute
this statement.
0310WP4356.15-Judgment 3/4
Shri Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the respondent
No.1, states that the respondent No.1 does not dispute the liability of
paying the amount to the extent of 75%, as directed by the Grievance
Committee. It is stated that some time may be granted to the
respondent No.1 to pay the amount to the petitioners. It is stated that
the respondent No.1 is ready to clear the dues, that are payable to the
petitioners, by 31/12/2016.
In view of the statement made on behalf of the respondent
No.3 as also the respondent No.1, it appears that the grievance of the
petitioner should stand redressed.
Hence, by accepting the statement made on behalf of the
respondent No.1 and that would be binding on the respondent No.1, we
allow the writ petition. The respondent No.1 is directed to pay the
amount towards 75% of the dues, that are liable to be paid by the
respondent No.1 to the petitioners in three equal installments, payable
in the month of October, November and December, 2016. Rule is made
absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
0310WP4356.15-Judgment 4/4
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of
original signed Judgment.
Uploaded by : G.S.Khunte, Uploaded on : 05/10/2016
P.A.to Hon'ble Judge
