Dr. Sau. Manik Narayanrao Mehare vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 12224 Bom

                                                                     Judgment WP 2241.2021.odt




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 2241 OF 2021

Dr. Sau. Manik Narayanrao Mehare
Age 61 years, Occ. Assistant Professor,
R/o. Vasundhara Apartment,
Dahiwalkar Plot, New Gilani Nagar,
                                                            .. Petitioner
Yavatmal, Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal

                         Versus
1. State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary,  Higher    and    Technical
Education Dept., Mantralaya, Extension
Building, Mumbai.

2. Joint Director Higher Education
Amravati Division, V.M.V. Premises,                       .. Respondents
Amravati, Tq. and Dist. Amravati.

3. Babaji Date Arts and Commerce
College, Yavatmal, Through its Principal,
Shivaji Nagar, Yavatmal, Tq. and Dist.
Yavatmal.


Mr. P. S. Patil, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. N. R. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2.

                                           CORAM :   SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                                     ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

DATED : 31/08/2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

Heard Mr.P.S.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mr.N.R.Patil, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

KOLHE/P.A                                                                      PAGE 1    OF 2





                                                                         Judgment WP 2241.2021.odt




(2)                            Rule.       Rule made returnable forthwith.              Heard

finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(3) It is not in dispute that the issue involved in this

petition having same facts, as the facts of the case of Shri Maruti

Dattatraya Patil vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. in Writ Petition

No.13166 of 2017 decided on 03rd October, 2018, is squarely covered

by the view taken in this very case.

(4) Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed.

(5) The impugned communication is quashed and set

aside. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled for pensionary

benefits and accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay the

pensionary benefits to the petitioner in accordance with law with

arrears from the date of superannuation till the actual payment within

a period of three months from the date of the order.

(6)                            Rule accordingly. No costs.




                    [ANIL S. KILOR]                          [SUNIL B. SHUKRE]                 .




KOLHE/P.A                                                                         PAGE 2    OF 2