Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Dr. Mayoordhwaj Chaitramji ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 953 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 953 Bom
Judgement Date : 22 March, 2017

Bombay High Court
Dr. Mayoordhwaj Chaitramji ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 22 March, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
                                                                                        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





 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter