Bombay High Court
Shri Nitin S/O Nivas Mohekar And ... vs The State Of Maha. Thr The ... on 10 March, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp3203.09.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3203/2009
PETITIONERS: 1. Shri Nitin s/o Nivas Mohekar
aged about 31 years, Occ. Service
R/o Near Jain Mandir, Mahaveer
Ward, Pusad, Tah. Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal.
2. Shri Subodh s/o Sunandan Kanhed,
aged about 33 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Mahaveer Ward, Pusad, Tah. Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
3. Shri Prashant s/o Shivdas Shivankar,
aged about 30 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Devi Ward, Pusad, Tah. Pusad, Dist.
Yavatmal.
4. Shri Shailesh s/o Vaijnath Pande,
aged about 33 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Laxmi Nagar, Pusad, Tah. Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
5. Smt. Chanda wd/o Navin Jaju,
aged about 32 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Ganesh Ward, Pusad, Tah. Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra
through the Secretary, Municipal Council,
Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Collector, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
3. Municipal Council, Pusad through its
Chief Officer, Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2017 00:31:31 :::
wp3203.09.odt
2
4. The Regional Director of Municipal
Administration, Amravati Division,
Amravati.
(Amendment as per Hon'ble Court's
order dated 9.10.09)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for petitioner
Ms T.H. Udeshi, AGP for respondent nos.1, 2 and 4
Shri Papinwar, Adv. h/f Shri A.M. Ghare, Adv. for respondent no.3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 10.03.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction against the
respondents to grant approval to their services. The petitioners seek a
direction against the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioners in
the prescribed scale.
The learned Counsel for the respondent no.3 has opposed
the prayers made in the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioners are
not working with the respondent no.3. It is stated that the salary for the
period during which the petitioners worked was released in their favour.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners however disputes
the statements made on behalf of the respondent no.3.
wp3203.09.odt
The dispute involved in this petition cannot be decided, in
exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Since the disputed questions of facts that
are involved in this writ petition cannot be decided, in exercise of the writ
jurisdiction, the writ petition is liable to be disposed of. The petitioners
would be free to take up appropriate proceedings for seeking the relief, if
so advised.
Hence, we dispose of the writ petition with no order as to
costs. The points raised in the petition are however kept open. Rule stands
discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
