Vijay Prabhakar Balsekar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10957 Bom

                                                         950-wp-13456-2021 (J).odt




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   WRIT PETITION NO.13456 OF 2021

      Vijay s/o Prabhakar Balsekar
      Age: 58 years, Occu.: In service
      as Sectional Engineer, Maharashtra
      Jeevan Pradhikarn,
      R/o. C/o. A.S. Karandikar,
      31, Datta Colony, Erandol,
      Jalgaon.                                                .. Petitioner

               Versus
1.    The State of Maharashtra
      Through Water Supply and Sanitation
      Department, G. T. Hospital Road,
      New Mantralaya Mumbai

2.    Member Secretary,
      Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran,
      Express, Towers 4th Floor,
      Nariman Point, Mumbai.

3.    The Chief Administrative Officer,
      Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran,
      Cidco Bhavan, Belapur Navi Mumbai.

4.    Chief Engineer, (Region Nashik)
      Regional Office,
      Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran,
      Near Commissioner Office,
      ISP Road, Nashik Road, Nashik                           .. Respondents

                                     ...
Mr. Chandrakant Ghodke h/f          Mr. G. L. Deshpande, Advocate for
petitioner.
Mrs. Vaishali Patil Jadhav, AGP for respondent No.1 - State.
Mr. A. G. Vasmatkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.
                                  ...

                        CORAM :    SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
                                   Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE : 18-10-2022

950-wp-13456-2021 (J).odt

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

the learned Advocates for the respective parties, heard finally at the

stage of admission.

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Chandrakant Ghodke holding for

learned Advocate Mr. G. L. Deshpande for the petitioner, learned

AGP Mrs. Vaishali Jadhav Patil and learned Advocate Mr. A. G.

Vasmatkar for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

3. All of them agree to the fact that the present petition was also

by the petitioner, who was similarly situated to the petitioners in

Writ Petition No.2330 of 2021 (Upendra s/o Madhavrao

Kulkarni Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) with the

companion matters, which came to be decided on 19.09.2022. It is

stated that since the petitioner is similarly situated, the present

petition deserves similar treatment and the learned Advocate for

respondent Nos.2 to 4 has no objection for the same.

4. In view of this position, the writ petition stands allowed by

directing respondents not to take into consideration the upgradation

granted on the post of Sectional Engineer while considering the

entitlement of the petitioners for grant of financial upgradation

under the ACPS. In case the petitioners are found eligible for grant

950-wp-13456-2021 (J).odt

of such financial upgradation, the consequential benefits be

extended to them within a period of four months from today. The

writ petition stands allowed to the above extent.

5. Rule is made absolute.

[Y. G. KHOBRAGADE]                     [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
      JUDGE                                     JUDGE


scm