Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 953 Bom
Judgement Date : 22 March, 2017
wp5264.13.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5264/2013
PETITIONER: Dr. Mayoordhwaj Chaitramji Meshram,
Aged about 59 years, Occu. : Associate
Professor, R/o A-006, Suraksha Housing
Complex, Hindustan Colony, Amravati Road,
Nagpur - 440033.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra, through
its Secretary, Department of Higher
Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj,
Nagpur University, Ravindranath Tagore
Marg, Nagpur through its Registrar.
3. The Joint Director of Higher Education,
Nagpur Division, Old Morris College,
Nagpur.
4. The Laxminarayan Institute of Technology,
The Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj,
Nagpur University, Ravindranath Tagore
Marg, Nagpur through its Director,
Amravati Road, Nagpur.
5. The Review Committee,
Constituted by the Rashtrasant Tukadoji
Maharaj, Nagpur Univerisity, Ravindranath
Tagore Marg, Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.S. Sahare, Advocate for petitioner
Shri D.P. Thakare, Addl. G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 3
Shri S.M. Puranik, Advocate for respondent nos.2, 4 & 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 00:57:38 :::
wp5264.13.odt
2
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 22.03.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the
petitioner was continued in service till he attained the age of 62 years.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has
received the salary for the period during which he had worked and would
not claim the salary for the period during which he did not work. It is
further stated that this Court has held in the order, dated 12.6.2015 that
the petitioner would be entitled to continuity of service till he retires on
completion of 62 years of age and would be entitled to pensionary
benefits accordingly. It is stated that the grievance of the petitioner stands
redressed as the petitioner has received the salary for the period during
which he has worked and is also receiving the regular pension. The
learned Counsel states that the writ petition could be disposed of in view
of the redressal of the petitioner's grievance.
On the statement made by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner, we dispose of the writ petition with no order as to costs. Rule
stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!