Vivekanand S/O. Yuvraj Raghorte vs The State Of Maha, Through, The ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 5943 Bom

                                                        1                                   judg. wp 5009.15.odt 

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                                                                         
                               WRIT PETITION No. 5009/2015




                                                                              
    Vivekanand s/o Yuvraj Raghorte,
    Aged about 33 years, Occ.-Service, 
    R/o.-Borgaon (Khurd), Post Pahela, 




                                                                             
    Tq. and District Bhandara.                                                 PETITIONER


                                                 .....VERSUS.....




                                                             
    1]       The State of Maharashtra,
             through the Secretary,    
             Rural Development Department, 
             Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
                                      
    2]       Zilla Parishad, Bhandara,
             through its Chief Executive Officer, 
             Tahsil and District Bhandara.

    3]       Block Development Officer,
           


             Higher Grade, Gram Panchayat,
             Borgaon, Post-Pahela Tahsil and District Bhandara.
        



    4]       Gram Panchayat, Borgaon (Khurd),
             Post-Pahela,  District Bhandara
             through its Sarpanch.                                              R
                                                                                   ESPONDENTS
                                                                                             





                          Shri M.K. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner.
                    Shri A. Kapgate, Advocate for the respondent nos.2 and 3.
                        Shri J.K. Matale, Advocate for the respondent no.4.
             Shri I.J. Damle, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1.





                                                         Coram : Smt. Vasanti  A  Naik  & 
                                                                       Kum. Indira Jain, JJ.

Dated : 13 October, 2016.

th

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Writ Petition is heard

finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned Counsel for

2 judg. wp 5009.15.odt

the parties.

By this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the

respondents to immediately reinstate the petitioner in Gram Panchayat

Borgaon (Khurd) in pursuance of the order passed by the respondent no.3 on

16-11-2012.

Shri Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the petitioner states that

though the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by the respondent no.2

by the order dated 26-07-2012 and the respondent no.4 was directed to

reinstate the petitioner in service, the respondent no.4 has not reinstated the

petitioner in service.

Shri Matale, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.4-Gram

Panchayat states, by referring to the Pursis dated 26-09-2016 that the erstwhile

management was not desirous of reinstating the petitioner. It is stated that the

management has now changed and the new management of the Gram

Panchayat is willing to reinstate the petitioner in service, if the Court so

directs.

In view of the statement made by the learned Counsel for the

respondent no.4 and the statement made in the Pursis, the grievance of the

petitioner should stand redressed. We allow the Writ Petition on the basis of

the statements made by the respondent no.4 in the Pursis dated 26-09-2016.

As per the undertaking of the respondent no.4, the respondent no.4 should

3 judg. wp 5009.15.odt

reinstate the petitioner in service as early as possible and positively within four

weeks.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

                                 JUDGE                                                 JUD
                                                                                          GE
                                                                                             




                                                             
                                       
                                      
    Deshmukh
         
      







                                                         4                                   judg. wp 5009.15.odt 



                                                                                                 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 :                      Uploaded on :

                                                          (Deshmukh)                         14/10/2016
                                                                       P.A. to the Hon'ble Judge.