Union Of India, Thr. Secretary, ... vs Shri. Prakash Nilkanthrao ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4916 Bom

                                                  905 wp 1374.17.odt
                                     1/3


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

               WRIT PETITION NO.1374 OF 2017



1.         Union of India
           Through its Secretary,
           Ministry of Water Resources, RD & GR
           Shram-Shakti Bhavan, Rafi Marg,
           New Delhi-110001

2.         The Chairman,
           Central Ground Water Board,
           N.H.-IV, Bhujal Bhawan
           Faridabad, Haryana-121001

3.         The Regional Director,
           Central Ground Water Board,
           Central Region,
           New Secretariat Building,
           Civil Lines, Nagpur 440001             .... PETITIONERS


                             // VERSUS //



1.         Shri Prakash Nilkanthrao Chandrayan,
           Aged: about 61 years,
           Occ: Retired Head Surveyor,
           Central Ground Water Board,
           R/o Flat No.203, Mehar Apartment,
           Naik Layout, Jaitala Road, Subhash Nagar,
           Nagpur-440022                      ......RESPONDENT


                   ....

___________________________________________________________ Mrs. Mugdha Chandurkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Mohan Sudame, Advocate for respondent. ___________________________________________________________________

CORAM : SUNIL B. SUKRE AND SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR JJ.

DATE     : 06/05/2022
                                                    905 wp 1374.17.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per: SUNIL B. SUKRE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. On considering the arguments advanced on behalf of

the petitioners and also the submission made on behalf of the

respondent and upon perusal of impugned judgment, we find

that this petition cannot be entertained as there is really no

cause of action for the petitioners to have filed this petition.

3. By the impugned judgment, the petitioners have been

directed to consider and pass appropriate order as per rules as

regards release of amount of gratuity. These directions given in

the impugned judgment, would not make the petitioners as

aggrieved party. Discretion of the petitioners to pass appropriate

order in the matter have not been taken away.

4. In view of above, we find that the petition is devoid of

any merit.

905 wp 1374.17.odt

5. Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Rule is

discharged.

                                              JUDGE                                     JUDGE
    manisha




Signed By:MANISHA ALOK
SHEWALE


Signing Date:06.05.2022 14:35