Dr. Rakshit Madan Bagde vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7600 Bom

                                       1                               954-WP-2255-2020.odt


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 2255 OF 2020
               (Dr. Rakshit Madan Bagde Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions                   Court's or Judge's order
and Registrar's orders.
       Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner.
       Ms. K.R. Deshpande, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3/ State.

       CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.

DATE : AUGUST 3, 2022.

In view of the order dated 17/9/2020, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the controversy is covered by the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1346/2018 (Ku. Anita d/o Udaybhan Bansod Vs. The State of Maharashtra thr. its Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education & Ors.) decided on 18/2/2019 has been recorded. The respondents were directed to make a statement whether the issue involved in the petition was covered by the decision in the said Writ Petition. In that judgment, the consent given by respondent No.3 - The Joint Director of Higher Education has been recorded as under :

"1 to 3 XXXX

4. XXXX Therefore, learned Additional Government Pleader had sought some time from this Court to seek appropriate instructions from the respondent No.3. Now it is submitted by the learned Addl. G.P. that the respondent No.3 is personally present in the Court and has also given her consent for granting approval and releasing the salary in terms of prayer clause 1 and 2, the purpose of this petition be considered as served itself."

In the affidavit filed by the very same Authority, it has been stated in paragraph 6 as under :

"6. It is submitted that the petitioner is relying on the Judgment and Order dated 18.2.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 1346/2018. It is submitted that the said judgment and order dated 18.2.2019 is not applicable in the present case as the said writ petition was not decided on merits and the petition was allowed on the consent of Respondent No.3 and hence the order dated 18.2.2019 is not applicable in the present case."

2 954-WP-2255-2020.odt

If respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No. 1346/2018 had given consent for granting approval and releasing the said petitioner's salary, we do not find any reason why similar treatment cannot be granted to the present petitioner especially when both of them are similarly situated. It is also noted that their services were approved by a common order of approval.

In the light of the aforesaid, respondent No.3 shall file a fresh affidavit explaining the aforesaid.

Stand over to 18/8/2022.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.) SUMIT

Digitally signed bySUMIT CHETAN AGRAWAL Signing Date:04.08.2022 10:43