in the 1viaharashtra administrative tribunal mumbai

(G.C.P.) .1 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISp1.- MAT-F-2 E.

IN THE 1VIAHARASHTRA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI

M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

IN

Original Application No.

of 20

of 20

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

Appearance, Tribunal's orders or

directions and Registrar's orders Tribunal' s orders

Date : 03.09.2021

O.A.No.592 of 2021 B. D. Mhatre ....Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents.

1. Heard Smt. V. Y. Agane, learned Counsel for the

Applicant and Smt. Archana B. K., learned Presenting Officer

for the Respondents.

2. In this O.A., the Applicant has prayed for direction to

Respondents to consider his representations dated

09.12.2020 and 24.02.2021 for correction in date of birth and

also for direction to release gratuity and other retiral

benefits.

3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that in

service book, date of birth of Applicant is recorded as

01.12.1962 instead of 02.12.1962.

4. The Applicant admittedly stood retired on

30.11.2020. It is after retirement only, he made

representations dated 09.12.2020 and 24.02.2021 for

correction in date of birth.

5. Insofar as gratuity and retiral benefits are concerned,

learned Counsel for the Applicant fairly concedes that the

Applicant has received pension payment order dated

31.07.2021. According to her, she received pension papers

after filing of O.A. Be that as it may, gratuity and retiral

benefits are already sanctioned as seen from pension

payment order tendered by Applicant herself.

6. Admittedly, the Applicant did not apply for correction

in date of birth within five years from the date of joining of

service as required under Rule 38(2) of Maharashtra Civil

Services (General Conditions of Services), Rules 1981.

7. It is only after retirement, the Applicant has made

[PTO certain representations.

2

01, ()Ct∎ ,

ocil4 or 1Wmiaid's orders

8. It is well settled that the grievance or challenge for

correction in date of birth has to be raised in terms of

Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Services),

Rules 1981 and no such grievance can be entertained at the

fag end of service. In this behalf, reference may be made to

the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in following cases:-

(A) (2010) 14 SCC 423 (State of Maharashtra Vs.

Gorakhnath S. Kamble).

(B) (2011) 9 SCC 664 (State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Premlal

Shrivas).

(C) 2020(3) SLR 639 (SC) Bharat Coking Coal Limited and

Ors. Vs. Shyam Kishor Singh.

9. As such, the grievance made by the Applicant in

present O.A. about correction in date of birth is not at all

maintainable at such belated stage after retirement.

10. Insofar as representations made by the Applicant for

correction in date of birth is concerned, in terms of Rule (2-B)

of Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Services)

Rules, 1981, those are automatically stands disposed of as

rejected on the date of retirement. Rule (2-B) is as follows :-

"(2-B) : No application for alternation of entry regarding date of birth of the Government servant pending with the Government on the date of commencement of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) (Amendment) Rules, 2008 shall be processed after the date of retirement of such Government servant and such application shall automatically stand disposed of as rejected on the date of retirement. Any such application made by the retired Government servant shall not be entertained."

11. In view of above, O.A. is not maintainable and

dismissed summarily.

12. No order as to costs.

(A.P. Kurhekar) Member(J)

vsm

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

(G.C.P.) .1 2737 (50,000-4-2019) !SDI.- MAT-F-2 E.

IN THE MAHARASHTRA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI

M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

IN


of 20

of 20




directions and Registrar's orders

Tribunal' s orders

Date : 03.09.2021

O.A.No.1104 of 2019

A. S. Teji ....Applicant

Versus


1. The Applicant and his Counsel are absent.

Smt. Archana B. K., learned Presenting Officer for the

Respondents is present.

2. Perusal of record reveals that the Applicant and his

Counsel are continuously absent from last 3-4 dates but the

matter was adjourned to give enough opportunity to them.

3. However, today again the Applicant and his Counsel

are absent. Thus, it appears that they are not interested in

the matter.

4. In view of above, Original Application is, therefore,

dismissed in default.

(A.P. Kurhekar)

Member(J) vsm

L.O.

5. In afternoon session, Smt. Rajana Todankar, learned Counsel for the Applicant and requested for restoration of O.A. stating that because of local restrictions, she could not attend the Tribunal on previous dates.

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

2




Tribunal' s orders

6. In the interest of justice, O.A. is restored to file.

7. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that she

wants to amend O.A. so as to bring on record certain

important material in respect of application made by the

Applicant's mother. According to her, name of the Applicant's

mother was taken in waiting list and she wants to produce

the document by way of amendment.

8. Two weeks time is granted to file M.A. for

amendment.

9. S.O. to 17.09.2021.

(A.P. Kurhekar)

Member(J) \Ism

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

(G.C.P.) 2737 (50,000-4 2019) ISD1.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

IN


of 20

of 20


Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearance, Tribunal's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

Tribunal' s orders

Date : 03.09.2021

O.A.No.1104 of 2019

A. S. Teji ....Applicant

Versus


1. The Applicant and his Counsel are absent.

Smt. Archana B. K., learned Presenting Officer for the

Respondents is present.

2. Perusal of record reveals that the Applicant and his

Counsel are continuously absent from last 3-4 dates but the

matter was adjourned to give enough opportunity to them.

3. However, today again the Applicant and his Counsel

are absent. Thus, it appears that they are not interested in

the matter.

4. In view of above, Original Application is, therefore,

dismissed in default.

(A.P. Kurhekar)

Member(J)

vsm

L.O.

5. In afternoon session, Smt. Rajana Todankar, learned

Counsel for the Applicant and requested for restoration of O.A. stating that because of local restrictions, she could not

attend the Tribunal on previous dates.

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

2


Tribunal' s orders

Date : 03.09.2021

O.A.No.667 of 2021

H. N. Gangurde ....Applicant

Versus


1. Heard Shri A. V. Bandiwadekar, learned Counsel for

the Applicant and Smt. Kranti Gaikwad, learned Presenting

Officer for the Respondents.

2. Issue notice before admission returnable on

23.09.2021.

3. Tribunal may take the case for final disposal at this

stage and separate notice for final disposal shall not be

issued.

4. Applicant is authorized and directed to serve on

Respondents intimation/notice of date of hearing duly

authenticated by Registry, along with complete paper book of

0.A.. Respondents are put to notice that the case would be

taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission hearing.

5. This intimation/notice is ordered under Rule 11 of the

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules,

1988, and the questions such as limitation and alternate

remedy are kept open.

6. The service may be done by Hand delivery, speed

post, courier and acknowledgement be obtained and

produced along with affidavit of compliance in the Registry

within one week. Applicant is directed to file Affidavit of

compliance and notice.

7. In case notice is not collected within seven days or

service report on affidavit is not filed 3 days before

returnable date, Original Application shall stand dismissed

without reference to Tribunal and papers be consigned to

record.

8. S.O. to( 23.09.2025) 16 ( 51.1


vsm

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

(GC P1 J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISpl.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

I N


of 20

of 20



Tribunal' s orders

Date: 03.09.2021

O.A. No.59 of 2021

S.M. Dongre Applicant

Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents.

1. Applicant and his Advocate both are absent.

2. Smt. Punam Mahajan, learned Advocate for the

Applicant is on leave note.

3. Ms. S.P. Manchekar, learned Chief Presenting

Officer for the Respondents is present.

4. Today learned C.P.O has filed short Affidavit

along with minutes of Review Committee. It is taken on

record.

5. Adjourned for hearing at the stage of admission

6. S.O. to 21.09.2021.

(A.P. Kurhekar) Member (J)

NMN

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

(G.C.P.) J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISpl.- MAT-F-2 E.

IN THE MAHAR.ASHTRA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI

M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

I N


of 20

of 20



Tribunal' s orders

Date: 03.09.2021

O.A. No.102 of 2021

T.A.K.N.A.K. Pathan Applicant


1. Heard Shri K.R. Jagdale, learned Advocate for the

Applicant and Shri A.J. Chougule, learned Presenting


2. On request of learned Advocate for the

Applicant two weeks time is granted for filing Affidavit-

in-Rejoinder.

3. S.O. to 17.09.2021.

(A.P. Kurhekar)

Member (J)

NMN

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

( G C P „1- 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISO.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

IN


of 20

of 20



Tribunal' s orders

Date: 03.09.2021

O.A. No.597 of 2020

R.D. Ghane Applicant





2. On request of learned P.O. one week time is

granted for filing Affidavit-in-Reply.

3. S.O. to 14.09.2021.

(A.P. Kurhekar)

Member (J)

NMN

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

(GCP ) J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISp1.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

IN

Original. Application No.

of 20

of 20



Tribunal' s orders

Date: 03.09.2021

O.A. No.129 of 2021

A.M. Garad Applicant



Applicant, Smt. K.S. Gaikwad, learned Presenting Officer

for the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 is

present in person.

2. Today learned P.O. has filed Affidavit-in-Sur

Rejoinder on behalf of the Respondent No.1. It is taken

on record. Respondent No.2 has also filed Affidavit-in-

Sur Rejoinder. It is taken on record.

3. Adjourned for hearing at the stage of admission.

4. S.O. to 21.09.2021.


NMN

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

(G.C.P.) -1 2737 (50,000-4-2019) 'SDI.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No. of 20

IN

Original Application No. of 20



Appearance, Tribunal's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

Tribunal' s orders

Date : 03.09.2021

O.A.No.43 of 2020

(Through Video Conference)

H. R. Das ....Applicant

Versus


1. Today, the matter is placed before special Division

Bench comprising Shri Shree Bhagwan, Hon'ble Vice-

Chairman(A) and Shri A. P. Kurhekar, Hon'ble Member (J) in

terms of order passed by the Hon'ble Chairperson on 03.09.2021.

2. The Applicant in person is preset. Ms S. P.

Manchekar, learned Chief Presenting Officer for the

Respondents is representing all the Respondents.

3. In the beginning itself, learned C.P.O. has pointed out

that there is no reply on behalf of the Respondent No.1 since

no notice has been issued to the Respondents.

4. Learned C.P.O., therefore, requested for three weeks

time to file reply on behalf of the Respondent No.1.

5. The Applicant in person has no objection for grant of

three weeks time to file reply as a last chance.

6. Perusal of record reveals that formal order of

issuance of notices is not there but learned C.P.O. appeared

on behalf of the Respondents and the matter proceeded

ahead. Except Respondent No.1 all other Respondents (2 to

6) have filed their reply.

7. In view of above, issue notice before admission

returnable on 24.09.2021 to Respondent No.1.



issued.

[PTO.

2




Tribunal' s orders





taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission hearing,














record.

13. S.O. to 24.09.2021.

14. Learned C.P.O. submits that reply on behalf of

Respondent No.1 will be filed on next date.

15. The Applicant in person further states that he

would file Rejoinder after getting reply of Respondent No.1.

16. S.O. to 24.09.2021.

\1%

(A.P. Kurhekar) (Shree Bhagwan) Member(J) Vice Chairman (A)

vsm

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

2


Tribunal' s orders

Date : 03.09.2021.

O.A.No.527 of 2021

R. G. Samdale ....Applicant Versus


1. Heard Shri S. S. Deokar, learned Counsel for the

Applicant and Shri A. J. Chougule, learned Chief Presenting Officer for the Respondents.

2. The Applicant has challenged the suspension order

dated 25.11.2020 whereby he was suspended in contemplation of D.E.

3. Learned P.O. has pointed that the Tribunal has

already disposed of four Original Applications i.e. 504, 505,

506 and 507/2021 by order dated 01.09.2021 which are

arising from the same suspension order and directions are

issued to Respondent No.2 to take review of suspension. He,

therefore, submits that on similar line, this O.A. be disposed of with suitable directions.

4. Whereas, learned Counsel for the Applicant submits

that since no charge sheet is filed within 90 days, the

Applicants are entitled for reinstatement in view of the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2015) 7 SCC 291 (Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Anr.). He, therefore, submits that instead of giving directions to

Respondents to take review, the Tribunal can revoke the

suspension and accordingly orders to that effect be passed.

5. As pointed out by learned P.O., four Original

Applications arising from the same suspension order are

already disposed of by giving directions to Respondent No.2

to take review of suspension in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case (cited supra) as well as G.R. dated 09.07.2019. Therefore, it

would be appropriate to adopt the same course of action and

I see no reason to take different view. Let the Respondent

No.2 to take review of suspension.

6. In view of above, O.A. is disposed of with direction to

take review of suspension of the Applicant within a month

from today and the decision as the case may be, shall be

communicated to the Applicant within a week thereafter.

7. If the Applicant felt aggrieved by the decision, he may avail legal remedy in accordance to law.

8. No order as to costs.

(A.P. Kurhekar)

Member(J) vsm

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

2



Tribunal' s orders

Date: 03.09.2021

O.A. No.1184 of 2019

D.J. Sonawane Applicant Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents.

1. Heard Shri M.A. Parab, learned Advocate holding

for Shri P.S. Pathak, learned Advocate for the Applicant

and Shri A.J. Chougule, learned Presenting Officer for

the Respondents.

2. Though this matter is listed for Final Hearing, it is

transpired that learned Advocate for the Applicant Lf■kr

not served copies of O.A. and notices of the O.A. on the

Respondents. Learned Advocate for the Applicant fairly

submits that though he collected notices from the

Office but did not served it upon Respondents due to

lockdown. Tribunal has passed the order for issuance of

notices on 18.03.2020.

3. Indeed, were notices are not collected as per

condition order, O.A. ought to have been dismissed in

default by Office. However it was listed before the

Tribunal and that aspect was not brought to the notice.

On the contrary learned P.O. appeared and sought

adjournment for filing Reply. Thereafter, matter was

adjourned from time to time for filing Reply and

ultimately Reply being not filed, O.A. was fixed for Final

Hearing without Reply, later O.A. was dismissed in

default on 10.02.2021 but restored to the O.A.

4. Learned P.O. submits that he be allowed to file

Reply on next date so that matter can be heard on

merit, his request is quite reasonable in view of above

background.

5. Two weeks time is granted for filing Affidavit-in-

Reply.

6. S.O. to 17.09.2021.


NMN

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

2


Tribunal' s orders

Date : 03.09.2021

O.A.No.666 of 2021 V. R. Kamble ....Applicant

Versus


1. Heard Shri A. A. Desai, learned Counsel for the

Applicant and Smt. Kranti Gaikwad, learned Presenting Officer for the Respondents.

2. The Applicant has challenged the transfer order dated

06.08.2021 which has been corrected by issuance of

corrigendum order whereby her place of posting is changed

from Sangli to Sindhudurg .

3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant sought interim

relief inter-alia contending that corrigendum is in

contravention of G.R. and Applicant ought to have been

posted at Sangli.

4. Admittedly, the Applicant was due for transfer.

Secondly, she has also given option of Sindhudurg as option

no.2. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant interim relief.

5. Issue notice before admission returnable on 01.10.2021.


stage and separate notice for final disposal shall not be issued.

7. Applicant is authorized and directed to serve on Respondents intimation/notice of date of hearing duly authenticated by Registry, along with complete paper book of 0.A.. Respondents are put to notice that the case would be taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission hearing.

8. This intimation/notice is ordered under Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1988, and the questions such as limitation and alternate remedy are kept open.

5. The service may be done by Hand delivery, speed post, courier and acknowledgement be obtained and produced along with affidavit of compliance in the Registry within one week. Applicant is directed to file Affidavit of compliance and notice.

10. In case notice is not collected within seven days or service report on affidavit is not filed 3 days before

returnable date, Original Application shall stand dismissed without reference to Tribunal and papers be consigned to record.

11. S.O. to 01.10.2021.

(A.P. Kurhekar)

Member(1)

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISpi.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

IN


of 20

of 20


Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearance, Tribunal's orders or


Tribunal' s orders

Date: 03.09.2021

O.A. No.661 of 2020 with O.A. No.663 of 2020 with

O.A. No.682 of 2020 to O.A. No.685 of 2020 with O.A. No.703 of 2020 with O.A. No.85 of 2020 with

O.A. No.47 of 2021

P.R. Ninave

R.S. Yadav

S.G. Koli

V.B. Koli

P.R. Arage

P.R. Waikar

N.H. Koli

S.B. More Applicant


1. Heard Smt. V.K. Jagdale, learned Advocate

holding for Shri K.R. Jagdale, learned Advocate for the

Applicant in O.A. No.663/2020, Shri Arvind V.

Bandiwadekar, learned Advocate for the Applicant in

O.A. No. 682/2020 to O.A. No.685/2020 & 703/2020,

and Smt. Archana B.K., learned Presenting Officer for

the Respondents.

2. None for the Applicant in O.A. No.85/2020 &

O.A. No.47/2021.

3. Smt. Punam Mahajan, learned Advocate for the

Applicant in O.A. No.661/2020 has tendered her leave

note.

4. Interim Relief till today is extended till next date.

5. S.O. to 04.11.2021.

(Mec 11- Gad ) (Mridula R. Bhatkar, J.)

Member (A) Chptrwrson NMN

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

(G.C.P.i J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISpi.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

IN


of 20

of 20



Tribunal' s orders

Date: 03.09.2021

O.A. No.311 of 2021

M.D. Bandgar Applicant

Versus


1. Heard Shri Dr. Gunratan Sadavarte, learned

Advocate for the Applicant and Ms. S.P. Manchekar,

learned Chief Presenting Officer for the Respondents.

2. Suo-moto speaking to the minutes. In the order

dated 13.08.2021 in paragraph 2, line No.4 the words

'State of Maharashtra is vacant' be read as 'State of

Maharashtra are vacant'.

3. Learned C.P.O. submits that she has already sent

letter to P.W.D. on 20.08.2021 and she is awaiting

Reply.

4. S.O. to 07.09.2021.

j-

(Medh Gad I

Member (A)

NMN

(Mridula R. Bhatkar, J.)

Chairperson

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

- c

(MedIA/Gadgil) Member (A)

3.9.2021

(Mridula R. Bhatkar, J.) Chairperson

3.9.2021

(sgi)

(G.C.P.) J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISpi.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

IN


of 20

of 20



Tribunal' s orders

O.A. No.10 of 2020

S.S. Patil Vs.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

..Applicant

..Respondents

Heard Shri U.V. Bhosle. learned Advocate for the Applicant and Smt. K.S. Gaikwad, learned Presenting Officer for the Respondents.

2. On request and by consent the matter is taken today though it was shown adjourned to 2.11.2021 on today's board.

3. Ld. Advocate for the applicant submits that pursuant to the order dated 25.8.2021 the applicant has served respondents no.3, 4 & 5 by email. Out of 3, two are served by email however email sent to respondent no.5 is not delivered. Ld. Advocate submits that he has sent Whatsapp to respondents no.3, 4 & 5 and he has spoken telephonically to respondents no.3 & 5.

4. Ld. Advocate for the applicant is directed to file affidavit of service and if required to serve properly on respondent no.5. Ld. Advocate for the applicant seeks time for compliance.

5. S.O. to 16.9.2021 for final hearing. , Part Heard.

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

2


Tribunal' s orders

Date: 03.09.2021

C.A. No.15 of 2021 with O.A. No.83 of 2020

M.C. Lilani & Ors. Applicant


1. Heard Shri B.A. Bandiwadekar, learned Advocate

fpr the Applicant and Shri A.J. Chougule, learned

Presenting Officer for the Respondents.

2_. Learned P.O. produces a letter dated 02.09.2021

of Under Secretary, Public Health Department (P.H.D.)

marked as exhibit '1'.

3. Learned P.O. submits that we are waiting for the

opinion of the Law and Judiciary Department in respect

of implementation or go in appeal of the orders of the

Tribunal.

4. It is difficult to accept this submission as already

Ten months are over for the implementation of order.

It is to be noted that the Law and Judiciary Department

cannot sit in appeal for the orders passed in Judicial

forum. There is inordinate delay on the part of the

Government to take decision whether to challenge this

order in Writ Petition or not.

5 There is delay of three months in sending letter

from Public Health Department to Law and Judiciary

Department, when the time given by the Tribunal for

implementation of order is six weeks.

6 Hence, time is granted till 08.09.2021 to make

specific statement in written whether the Respondents

have filed Writ Petition or not.

7 S.O. to 08.09.2021.

(Medh Gad )

Member (A)


Chairperson

NMN

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

)(1C P ) J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISpl - MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

IN


of 20

of 20



Tribunal' s orders

Date : 03.09.2021

M. A. No.160 of 2021 in O.A.No.313 of 2021

P. S. Ghare ....Applicant

Versus


1. Heard Smt. Vaishali Agane, learned Counsel for the

Applicant and Shri A. J. Chougule, learned Presenting Officer


2. On request of learned P.O., two weeks time is granted

for filing reply by way of last chance.

3. S.O. to 08.09.2021.

2--- (A.P. Kurhekar)

Member(J) vsm

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

G.C.P.() J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISp1.- MAT-F-2 E.

IN THE MAIIARASHTRA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI


I N 3. S.O. to 08.09.2021.


FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET 14% • Kurhekar)

ember(J) Vf M




Date : 03.09.2021

M. A. No.276 of 2021 in O.A.No.489 of 2021

Dr. R. R. Asawa ....Applicant

Versus


1. Heard the Applicant in person and Smt. Kranti

Gaikwad, learned Presenting Officer for the Respondents.


for filing reply in M.A. as well as in O.A.

3. S.O. to 17.09.2021.

(A.P. Kurhekar)

Member(J) vsm

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

2



diructions and Registrar's orders

Tribunal' s orders

Date : 03.09.2021

O.A.No.561 of 2021

K. A. Salunke ....Applicant

Versus


1. Heard Shri A. R. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the



2. Issue notice before admission returnable on 01.10.2021.



issued.



















record.

8. S.O. to 01.10.2021.

/77

(A.P. Kurhekar)

Member(J) vsm

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

(G.C.P.) J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISp1.- MAT-F-2 E.

IN THE MAHARASHTRA. ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI

M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

IN


of 20

of 20





Date : 03.09.2021

O.A.No.722 of 2018

Dr. R. A. Singh ....Applicant

Versus


1. Heard Ms Tejal Dicholkar holding for Shri D. S. Pagare,

learned Counsel for the Applicant and Ms S. P. Manchekar,


2. Today, again learned Counsel for the Applicant

requested for adjournment stating that Advocate Shri Pagare

is unwell.

3. Perusal of record reveals that on the same ground

matter is adjourned twice.

4. However, in the interest of justice, two days time is

granted for final hearing since the matter pertains to 2018

with specific direction that if Advocate for Applicant remain

absent, the matter will be dismissed in default.

5. S.O. to 06.09.2021.

(A.P. Kurhekar) Member(1)

vsm

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

(G.C.1).) J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISp1.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

IN


of 20

of 20





Tribunal' s orders

Date : 03.09.2021

O.A.No.650 of 2021

A. D. Menge ....Applicant

Versus


1. Heard Shri R. M. Kolge, learned Counsel for the



2. On request of learned P.O., one week time is granted

for filing reply.

3. S.O. to 08.09.2021.

(A.P. Kurhekar)

Member(J)

vsm

[PEO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

(G.C.P.) J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

IN


of 20

of 20




Tribunal' s orders

Date : 03.09.2021

O.A.No.626 of 2021

G. N. Sarode ....Applicant

Versus


1. Heard Shri K. R. Jagdale, learned Counsel for the




for filing reply.

3. S.O. to 17.09.2021.

\PIk k„f\,V

'v (A.P. Kurhekar)

Member(J) vsm

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

(G.C.P.) J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISp1.- MAT-F-2 E.

IN THE MAHARASHTRA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MTJMBAI

M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

IN


of 20

of 20




Date : 03.09.2021

O.A.No.612 of 2021

Dr. S. B. Bansode ....Applicant

Versus


1. Heard Shri U. V. Bhosale, learned Counsel for the




for filing reply.

3. S.O. to 17.09.2021.

j\l\i\V -

(A.P. Kurhekar)

Member(J)

vsm

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

G.C.P.() J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISp1.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

IN


of 20

of 20





Date : 03.09.2021

O.A.No.540 of 2021

E. P. Patil ....Applicant

Versus




Officer for the Respondent No.1 and Shri R. M. Kolge, learned

Advocate for Respondent No.2.

2. On request of learned P.O. as well as Shri R. M. Kolge,

learned Counsel for Respondent No.2, one week time is

granted for filing reply.

3. S.O. to 08.09.2021


vsm

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

IGC P ) J 27:37 (50,000-4-2019) I Spl.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

I N


of 20

of 20





Date : 03.09.2021

O.A.No.396 of 2021

N. G. Parmar ....Applicant

Versus


1. Heard Shri C. T. Chandratre, learned Counsel for the

Applicant and Smt. Kranti Gaikwad, learned Presenting


2. Today, the matter is for filing Rejoinder.

3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that he

does not want to file Rejoinder and matter be heard at the

stage of admission.

4. The matter is adjourned for hearing at the stage of

admission.

5. S.O. to 21.09.2021.

vi,),‘M/ (A.P. Kurhekar)

Member(J) vsm

[PTO

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

G.C.P. i J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISp1.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

I N


of 20

of 20





Date : 03.09.2021

O.A.No.398 of 2021

Dr. B. M. Dahiphale ....Applicant

Versus


1. Heard Shri U. V. Bhosale, learned Counsel for the




for fling reply as a last chance.

3. S.O. to 17.09.2021.

1\1-1


vsm

[PTO

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

G.C.P.( ■ J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISp1.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

IN


of 20

of 20




Date : 03.09.2021

O.A.No.397 of 2021

N. G. Shaikh ....Applicant

Versus


1. Heard Shri C. T. Chandratre , learned Counsel for the





3. S.O. to 08.09.2021.

\jt)v̂V

J4 (A.P. Kurhekar)

Member(J) vsm

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

G.C.P. i J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISp1.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No of 20

IN





Tribunal' s orders

Date : 03.09.2021

O.A.No.272 of 2021

B. S. Suryawanshi ....Applicant

Versus


1. Heard Shri R. M. Kolge, learned Counsel for the





3. S.O. to 17.09.2021.

(A.P. Kurhekar)

Member(J)

vsm

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

(G.C.P.) J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISp1.- MAT-F-2 E.

IN THE MAHARASHTRA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MTJMBAI

M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

IN


of 20

of 20





Tribunal' s orders

Date : 03.09.2021

O.A.No.376 of 2021

A. M. Natekar ....Applicant

Versus



the Applicant and Shri A. J. Chougule, learned Presenting



for fling reply.

3. S.O. to 08.09.2021.

(A.P. Kurhekar)

Member(J)

vsm

[PTO

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

2


Tribunal' s orders

Date : 03.09.2021

O.A.No.671 of 2021

A. R. Patil ....Applicant

Versus


1. Heard Shri C. T. Chandratre, learned Counsel for the




01.10.2021.



issued.



















record.

8. S.O. to 01.10.2021.

(A.P. Ku rheka r)

Member(J)

vsm

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

(GET.) J 2737 (50,000 4-2019) IS pl.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

IN


of 20

of 20





Date : 03.09.2021

O.A.No.669 of 2021

P. G. Giri ....Applicant Versus





2. The Applicant has challenged the impugned transfer

order dated 30.08.201 whereby she was transferred from the

post of Accounts Officer, Education Department, Pune to

Accounts Officer, Directorate of Technical Education,

Mumbai.

3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant sought interim

relief to the impugned order dated 30.08.2021 inter-alia

contending that the Applicant is transferred mid-term and

mid-tenure without compliance of Section 4(5) Maharashtra

Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention

of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 (hereinafter

referred to as 'Act 2005).

4. Learned P.O. sought to contend that though the

Applicant has not completed normal tenure of three years at

Pune, there were serious complaints, therefore, she was

transferred by the order of Director of Accounts and

Treasuries, Mumbai. As regard the competent authority, she

placed reliance on G.R. dated 30.05.2015 which inter-alia

provides for delegation of powers in the matter of general

transfer.

5. Perusal of record reveals that the Applicant had

joined as Accounts Officer, Education Department, Pune in

view of her transfer by order dated 15.01.2020 and she had

not completed normal tenure of three years at Pune.

However, by impugned transfer order dated 30.08.2021, she

is transferred mid-term and mid-tenure from Pune to

Mumbai.

6. The file tendered by learned P.O. reveals that there is

only recommendation of Civil Services Board for mid-term

transfer of the Applicant for the allegation of serious

complaint of corruption and the same has been approved by

the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance. However, tligkqs no

approval of competent transferring authority as

contemplated under Section 4(5) of 'Act 2005'.

l oin, dod:t cc ( ;12-1,

JHi v oft der!,

7. It may be noted that the Applicant being Gazetted

Officer in Group-B, it is only Minister in Charge in

consultation with Secretary of the concerned department is

competent transferring authority for general transfer in

terms of table under Section 6 of 'Act 2005'. The present

case being of mid-term and mid-tenure transfer, it requires

approval of next higher competent authority i.e. Hon'ble

Chief Minister in terms of Section 4(5) of 'Act 2005' which

inter-alia specifically mandates that it should be with

approval of immediate superior transferring authority as

mentioned in table under Section 6 of 'Act 2005'.

Admittedly, there is no approval of the Hon'ble Chief

Minister.

8. As such, prima-facie impugned transfer order is not in

consonance with the approval of 'Act 2005' and therefore,

liable to be stayed.

9. In view of above, interim relief as prayed in prayer

clause 10(a) of O.A. is granted.


30.09.2021.



issued.




O.A.. Respondents are put to notice that the case would be











15. In case notice is not collected within three days or




record.

16. S.O. to 30.09.2021.

17. Hamdast granted.

Vi■Jk"

(A.P. Kurhekar) Member(1)

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

NMN

(Med117Caladgil Member (A)

G.C.P.() J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISpI.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

I N


of 20

of 20





Tribunal' s orders

Date: 03.09.2021

C.A. No.37 of 2020 with O.A. No.316 of 2019

K.D. Binner & Ors. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents.

1. Heard Shri Dr. Gunratan Sadavarte, learned

Advocate for the Applicant and Smt. K.S. Gaikwad,

learned Presenting Officer for the Respondents.

2. Shri Dr. Gunratan Sadavarte, learned Advocate

for the Applicant submits that he wishes to withdraw

Contempt Application as he has filed new O.A. and

notices has been issued in that matter.

3. In view of above, permission to withdraw is

allowed.


[PLO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

(G.C.P.) J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISp1.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

IN


of 20

of 20





Tribunal' s orders

Date: 03.09.2021

O.A. No.36 of 2021 with O.A. No.37 of 2021

With O.A. No.231 of 2021

T.B. Naik Applicant


1. Heard Shri Arvind V. Bandiwadekar, learned

Advocate for the Applicant and Ms. S.P. Manchekar,


2. Learned C.P.O. submits that she has already filed

Affidavit-in-Reply in O.A. No.36/2021 and O.A.

No.37/2021.

3. Today learned C.P.O. has filed Affidavit-in-Reply

on behalf of Respondents No.1 to 3 in O.A.

No.237/2021. It is taken on record. Copy of the Reply is

served to other side.

4. At the request of learned Advocate, three weeks

time is granted for filing Rejoinder.

5. S.O. to 14.10.2021.

NMN

(Medha Gadgil)

Member (A)


Chairperson

[PEO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

NMN

(Mehl Ga Member (A)


Chairperson

(G C P.) J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISpi.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

IN


of 20

of 20



Tribunal' s orders

Date: 03.09.2021

M.A. No.231 of 2020 in O.A. No.218 of 2020

K.B. Vaidya Applicant

Versus


1. None for the Applicant.

2. Shri A.J. Chougule, learned Presenting Officer for

the Respondents is present.

3. M.A. is fixed for hearing on interim relief.

4. Learned P.O. submits that in the present M.A. he

is adopting Affidavit-in-Reply filed in O.A.

5. Hence matter is fixed for hearing after two

weeks.

6. S.O. to 17.09.2021.

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

(G.C.P.) J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISpi.- MAT-F-2 E.

IN THE MAHA_RASHTRA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI

M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

IN


of 20

of 20




Tribunal' s orders

Date: 03.09.2021

O.A. No.268 of 2021

S.B. Thakur Applicant




Applicant and Ms. S.P. Manchekar, learned Chief


2. Learned C.P.O. has filed Affidavit-in-Reply on

behalf of Respondents No.1 & 2. It is taken on record.


Applicant, three weeks time is granted for filing

Rejoinder.

4. S.O. to 24.09.2021.

NMN

(Medh Gadgi )

Member (A)


Chairperson

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

NMN

(MedEyla Gad II)

Member (A)_.


Chairperson

(G.C.P.) J 2737 (50,000-4 2019) ISO.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

I N


of 20

of 20





Date: 03.09.2021

O.A. No.729 of 2020

V.V. Ambole & Ors. Applicant

Versus



2. Shri A.J. Chougule, learned Presenting Officer for


2. S.O. to 14.10.2021.

[RTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

(G.C.13.) J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISp1.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

I N


of 20

of 20




Date: 03.09.2021

O.A. No.325 of 2021

N.S. Kamble Applicant

Versus


1. Heard Shri G.B. Pawar, learned Advocate for the



2. Learned P.O. has filed Affidavit-in-Reply on

behalf of Respondents No.3 & 4. It is taken on record.


Applicant, four weeks time is granted for filing

Rejoinder.

4. S.O. to 01.10.2021.

NMN

(Med a Gadgil)

Member (A)


Chairperson

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISpl.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

I N


of 20

of 20





Date: 03.09.2021

O.A. No.369 of 2021

G.S. Chavan Applicant


1. Heard Shri Arvind V. Bandiwadekar, learned

Advocate for the Applicant and Smt. K.S. Gaikwad,

learned Presenting Officer for the Respondents.

2. Learned P.O. has filed Affidavit-in-Reply on

behalf of Respondent. It is taken on record. Copy of

the Reply be served to other side.

3. S.O. to 24.09.2021.

v\AAJA-A-41

)1' (Medha Ga; gil)

Member (A)

NMN


Chairperson

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

(G.C.P.) J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) LSO - MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

IN


of 20

of 20



Tribunal' s orders

Date : 03.09.2021

O.A.No.43 of 2020

H.R. Das ....Applicant Vs.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents.

1. Praecipe for speaking to minutes is moved by

the party in person.

2. Perused the praecipe dated 03.09.2021. In

view of the contents, the Praecipe for speaking to

minutes is refused.

(Mea Gadgil) Member (A)

(Mridula Bhatkar, J.) Chairperson

prk

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

(G.C.P.) J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISp1.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

I N


of 20

of 20



Tribunal' s orders

M.A. No.312 of 2021 in O.A. No.504 of 2020

Bhausaheb R. Rajwade Vs.


..Applicant

..Respondents

Heard Shri R.M. Kolge, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Smt. Archana B.K., learned Presenting Officer for the Respondents.

2. Ld. Advocate for the applicant has filed this MA for bringing on record the subsequent developments. Ld. Advocate seeks leave to amend the OA as per Schedule I to III attached to the MA.

3. Leave granted. Amendment be carried out within one week and amended copy of OA be served on all concerned. Ld. PO to file reply to the amended OA.

4. MA is allowed accordingly.

5. OA adjourned to 17.9.2021.

)Med a Gad il) (Mridula R. Bhatkar, J.) Member (A) Chairperson

3.9.2021 3.9.2021 (sgj)

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

2


Tribunal' s orders

M.A. No.299 of 2021 in O.A. No.370 of 2021

R.A.R. Sheikh Vs.


..Applicant

..Respondents

Heard Shri H.S. Chitley, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Ms. S.P. Manchekar. learned Chief Presenting Officer for the Respondents.

2. Ld. CPO submits that there is objectionable statement in para 8 of the MA against the Presenting Officer which in fact is a false allegation.

3. Ld. Advocate for the applicant submits that it is dictated inadvertently and hence appeared in para 8 of the MA. He submits that he wants to withdraw the said statement.

4. The words, "deliberately concealed the truth" in para 8 of MA should be read as not informed".

5. I.d. CPO states that reply of respondents no.1 . 4 & 5 is already filed and she seeks two weeks time to file reply of respondent no.2 in the OA. Ld. CPO states that she will serve copy of affidavit in reply on the I,d. Advocate for the applicant by email. Thereafter the applicant to file rejoinder on or before 1.10.2021 and serve copy in advance in the office of Ld. CPO and the respondents on or beibre 28.9.2021 as the matter is adjourned to 1.10.2021.

6. S.O. to 1.10.2021. Interim relief to continue till then.

(Medh Gad ) Member (A)

3.9.2021

(sgj)


3.9.2021

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

(G.C.P.) J 2737 (50,000-4 2019) ISp1.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

I N


of 20

of 20





Tribunal' s orders

Date: 03.09.2021

O.A. No.68 of 2021

S.R. Koli Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents.



Applicant and Ms. S.P. Manchekar, learned Chief


2. Admit.

3. S.O. to 14.10.2021.

NMN

(Medhe Gadgil) Member (A)


[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

(G.C.P.) J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISp1.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

IN


of 20

of 20



Tribunal' s orders

M.A. No.321 of 2020 in O.A. No.736 of 2020

M.H. Gaikwad Vs.


..Applicant

..Respondents

Heard Shri U.V. Bhosle. learned Advocate for the Applicant and Smt. K.S. Gaikwad. learned Presenting Officer for the Respondents.

2. Ld. PO seeks time to file reply.

3. S.O. to 17.9.2021.

(Medh Gad i'1) (Mridula R. Bhatkar, J.) Member (A) Chairperson

3.9.2021 3.9.,2021 (sgi)

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

(sgj)

(Medha Gadgi Member (A)

3.9.2021

(Mridula R. 13hatkar, J.) Chairperson

3.9.207 1

(G.C.P.) J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISp1.- MAT-F-2 E.



IN




Tribunal' s orders

M.A. No.367 of 2019 in O.A. No.677 of 2019

H.T. Shinde Vs.


..Applicant

..Respondents

Heard Shri R.M. Kolge, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Smt. K.S. Gaikwad, learned Presentinv, Officer for the Respondents.

2. Ld. Advocate for the applicant files affidavit in rejoinder dated 20.8.2021 and the same is taken on record.

3. S.O. to 24.9.2021.

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

(G.C.P.) J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) iSp1.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

I N


of 20

of 20



Tribunal' s orders

C.A. No.5 of 2021 in T.A. No. I of 2020 (T.A. No.8/2018 Aurangabad)

(W.P. No.11576 of 2014 Aurangabad)

Smt. Kiran C. Pawar Vs.


..Applicant

..Respondents

Heard Shri B.A. Bandiwadekar, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Smt. K.S. Gaikwad, learned Presenting Officer for the Respondents.

2. Ld. PO states that the respondents have complied with the order dated 5.11.2020 passed in the above TA and order of reinstatement has been issued however the matter regarding consequential benefits will be decided by next date.

3. S.O. to 6.9.2021.

(Medh Gad 1) Member (A)

3.9.2021 (sgj)


3.9.2021

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

(G.C.P.) J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISpl.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

I N


of 20

of 20





Tribunal' s orders

CA.19/2020 in OA. 158/16 with 0A.352/17 with 0A.353/17

Smt. S.K. Goraksha & 24 Ors. Vs.


..Applicants

..Respondents

Heard Shri B.A. Bandiwadekar, learned Advocate for the Applicants and Smt. K.S. Gaikwad, learned Presenting Officer for the Respondents.

2. Ld. PO seeks time to file affidavit in reply regarding compliance of the order dated 9.3.2020 passed in the above 0As. and she states that she will handover copy of some documents regarding compliance to the Ld. Advocate for the applicants.

3. S.O. to 17.9.2021.

(Mediha ) (Mridula R. Bhatkar, J.) Member (A) Chairperson

3.9.2021 3.9.2021

(sgj)

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

(G.C.P.) J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) [Spl.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

I N


of 20

of 20





Tribunal' s orders

O.A. No.255 of

Kisan J. Mane Vs.


..Applicant

..Respondents

Heard Shri U.V. Bhosle holding for Shri M.R. Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Shri A.J. Chouguie. learned Presenting Officer for the Respondents.

2. Ld. Advocate for the applicant produces a letter dated 10.7.2021 addressed to this Tribunal by the applicant for withdrawal of the above OA and seeks leave to withdraw the above OA. The said letter dated 10.7.2021 is taken on record and marked Exhibit '1' for identification.

3. In view of the above, OA is allowed to be withdrawn and disposed off as such.

1-1- -

(Medh Gad 1) (Mridula R. Bhatkar, J.) Member (A) Chairperson

3.9.2021 3.9.2021 (sgj)

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

(G.C.P.) J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISpl.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

IN


of 20

of 20





Tribunal' s orders

M.A. No.304 of 2021 in O.A. No.639 of 2021

Mahendra S. Patil & 5 Ors. Vs.


..Applicants

..Respondents

heard Shri S.R. Ghanavat. learned Advocate for the Applicants and Ms. S.P. Manchekar, learned Chief Presenting Officer for the Respondents.

2. The applicants are prosecuting for the same cause of action. For the reasons stated in the MA, leave to sue jointly as prayed for is granted, subject to the Applicants paying requisite court-fees, if not already paid. MA disposed off accordingly.

,// (Medha Gadgil) (Mridula R. Bliatkar, J.)

Member (A) Chairperson 3.9.2021 3.9.2021

(sgj)

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

VL—zA - (MedhU Gadgi I) Mriduia R. Bhatkar, J.)

Member (A) Chairperson 3.9.2021 3.9.2021

(sgj)

2


Tribunal' s orders

O.A. No.639 of 2021

Mahendra S. Patil & 5 Ors. Vs.


..Applicants

..Respondents

Heard Shri S.R. Ghanavat, learned Advocate for the Applicants and Ms. S.P. Manchekar, learned Chief Presenting Officer for the Respondents.

2. The applicants are seeking directions to the respondents to consider and revise/relax the eligibility criteria for the purpose of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer.

3. The office objections, if any, are to be removed and court-fees to be paid, if not already paid.

4. Issue notice before admission returnable on 8.10.2021. Respondents -are directed to file reply.

5. Applicant is authorized and directed to serve on Respondents intimation/notice of date of hearing duly authenticated by Registry, along with complete paper book of O.A. Private service is allowed in view of this present COVID-19 Pandemic situation. Respondents are put to notice that the case would be taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission hearing.

6. This intimation/notice is ordered under Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1988, and the questions such as limitation and alternate remedy are kept open.

7. The service may be done by hand delivery/ speed post/courier and acknowledgement he obtained and produced along with affidavit of compliance in the Registry within one week. Applicant is directed to file affidavit of compliance and notice.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

2


Tribunal' s orders

O.A. No.555 of 2021

Subhash N. Rane Vs.


..Applicant

..Respondents

Heard Smt. Vaishali K. Jagdale, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Ms. S.P. Manchekar, learned Chief Presenting Officer for the Respondents.

2. The applicant is challenging the order dated 7.6.2021 under which the respondent denied to grant the benefit of second time bound promotion under the Assured Career Progression Scheme.

3. The office objections, if any, are to be removed and court-fees to be paid, if not already paid.

4. Issue notice before admission returnable on 8.10.2021. Respondents are directed to file reply.

5. Applicant is authorized and directed to serve on Respondents intimation/notice of date of hearing duly authenticated by Registry, along with complete paper book of O.A. Private service is allowed in view of this present COVID-19 Pandemic situation. Respondents are put to notice that the case would be taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission hearing.

6. This intimation/notice is ordered under Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules. 1988, and the questions such as limitation and alternate remedy are kept open.

7. The service may be done by hand delivery/ speed post/courier and acknowledgement be obtained and produced along with affidavit of compliance in the Registry within one week. Applicant is directed to tile affidavit of compliance and notice.

rSL (Med Aa G dgil)

Member (A) 3.9.2021


3.9.2021

(sgi)

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

NMN

(Medha Gadgi

Member (A)

(G.C.P.) J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISp1.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

I N


of 20

of 20



Tribunal' s orders

Date: 03.09.2021

O.A. No.652 of 2020

M.B. Borkar Applicant

Versus



2. Ms. S.P. Manchekar, learned Chief Presenting

Officer for the Respondents is present.

3. S.O. to 24.09.2021.


Chairperson

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

( G C P.) J 2737 (50,000-4-2019) ISp1.- MAT-F-2 E.


M.A./R.A./C.A. No.

IN


of 20

of 20




Tribunal' s orders

Date: 03.09.2021

O.A. No.561 of 2020

Dr. K.S. Jawale Applicant

Versus



2. Smt. K.S. Gaikwad, learned Presenting Officer for


2. Admit.

3. S.O. to 01.10.2021.

0--ta

(Medha

Member (A)


Chairperson

NMN

[PTO.

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

HP

Text Box

Sd/-

in the 1viaharashtra administrative tribunal mumbai

Documents

Transcript of in the 1viaharashtra administrative tribunal mumbai