Gajanan Shivram Likhande vs Mah. State Electricity ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4596 Bom

 1707WP6139.11-Judgment                                                                         1/2


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

                      WRIT PETITION NO.  6139   OF    2011


 PETITIONER :-                        Gajanan Shivram Lokhande, Aged : About 45
                                      Years,   Occ.:   Service,   R/o   Near   Gram
                                      Panchayat, Tq. Barshitakli, Distt. Akola.  

                                         ...VERSUS... 

 RESPONDENTS :-                  1. Maharashtra   State   Electricity   Distribution
                                    Company   Limited   Through   its   Divisional
                                    Executive   Director-3,   Vidyut   Bhavan,
                                    Ground Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur-440 013. 
                                 2.   Maharashtra   State   Electricity   Distribution
                                    Company   Limited   Through   its   President,
                                    Nigam Office, Mumbai. 


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Mr.U.J.Deshpande, counsel for the petitioner.
                Mr. A.D.Mohgaonkar, counsel for the respondents.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                        CORAM : SMT. VASANTI    A    NAIK & 
                                                    ARUN  D. UPADHYE
                                                                     ,   JJ.

DATED : 17.07.2017

O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the

order of his dismissal dated 15/09/2011. The petitioner has further

sought a direction against the respondents to pay subsistence allowance

to the petitioner from 15/09/2011 till the date of his reinstatement.

1707WP6139.11-Judgment 2/2

Shri Mohgaonkar, the learned counsel for the respondents,

states that after the petitioner was acquitted by the trial court and the

judgment of his acquittal was affirmed by this court, the petitioner had

made a representation to the respondent-company for reinstatement of

the petitioner in service. It is stated that a decision on the said

representation would be taken at the earliest.

In view of the statements recorded herein above, the writ

petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take

appropriate decision on the representation of the petitioner within a

period of one month. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with

no order as to costs.

                        JUDGE                                              JUDGE 


 KHUNTE