Baban S/O Raghunath Hatwar vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 12367 Bom

        25-wp-2767-20(j).odt                                         1/2


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY


                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


                          WRIT PETITION NO. 2767 OF 2020


                 Baban S/o Raghunath Hatwar,
                 Aged about 52 Years, Occ. Service
                 R/o Plot No.64, Guru Bhavan,
                 Near Post Office, at Post Pachgaon,
                 Tq. Umred, Dist. Nagpur                   ..... PETITIONER


                                   // VERSUS //

        1.       The State of Maharashtra
                 through its Principal Secretary,
                 Department of Finance, Mantralaya,
                 Mumbai

        2.       State of Maharashtra, through
                 its Principal Secretary, Department of
                 Urban Development, Mantralaya,
                 Mumbai.

        3.       Nagpur Improvement Trust,
                 through its Chairman, having office
                 at Station Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur. ...RESPONDENTS

        =-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
        Shri Omkar A Ghare, Advocate for petitioner.
        Shri Amit Madiwale, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2
        Shri R.O. Chaabra, Advocate for respondent No.3
        =-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
                                    CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                            ANIL S.KILOR, JJ.

DATED : 1st September, 2021.

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

25-wp-2767-20(j).odt 2/2

Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally by consent of the parties.

3. It is seen that after reply was filed by the

respondent no.3, it was realized by the petitioner that

respondent no.3 was ready to consider the claim of the

petitioner for grant of Higher Pay-scale under the Assured

Progress Scheme and therefore, the petitioner made

representation to respondent no.3 for such consideration.

4. In view of above, we allow the petition partly and

direct the respondent no.3 to consider and decide the

representation dated 30th July, 2021 made by the petitioner to

respondent no.3, within four weeks from the date of the

order, in accordance with law.

5. Rule accordingly. No costs.

                        JUDGE                                              JUDGE
  sknair