FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE MAHARASHTRA … ORAL ORDER 28-08... · farad continuation sheet in...

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET

IN THE MAHARASHTRA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,

AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD

MA 351/2017 IN OA 816/2016

(Dr. Deshmukh & Ors. Vs. The State of Mah. & Ors.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram : Justice M.T. Joshi, V.C.

Date : 28.08.2017

ORAL ORDER:-

None for the applicant. Shri S.K. Shirse,

learned Presenting Officer for the respondents, is

present.

2. At the request of learned P.O. S.O. to

3.10.2017 for filing reply to the M.A. for amendment.

VICE CHAIRMAN

ARJ ORAL ORDERS 28.8.2017




MA ST. 1103/2017 IN OA 259/2016

(Ravikiran Vs. The State of Mah. & Ors.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------


(This matter is placed before the SingleBench due to non-availability of DivisionBench.)

Date : 28.08.2017

ORAL ORDER:-

Heard Shri K.P. Koli, learned Advocate holding

for Shri S.T. Veer, learned Adv. for the applicant and

Shri V.R. Bhumkar, learned P.O. for the respondents.

2. The learned Adv. seeks time to answer the

basic issue that was raised by the Tribunal vide order

dtd. 15.6.2017. In the circumstances, S.O. to

13.9.2017 for answering the basic issue raised by the

Tribunal vide order dtd. 15.6.2017.

VICE CHAIRMAN





OA 237/2013

(Kaveri Vs. The State of Mah. & Ors.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------



Date : 28.08.2017

ORAL ORDER:-

Heard Shri P.G. Gunale, learned Adv. for the

applicant and Shri I.S. Thorat, learned P.O. for the

respondents.

2. At the request of learned P.O., S.O. to

29.9.2017.

VICE CHAIRMAN





OA 468/2014

(Dr. Veena Vs. The State of Mah. & Ors.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------



Date : 28.08.2017

ORAL ORDER:-

None appears for the applicant. Shri D.R.

Patil, learned P.O. for the respondents, is present.

2. The learned P.O. points out towards para 8 of

the reply (page 41), which would show that the

applicant has already tendered resignation in 2003

and therefore, she was not allowed to resume the

duty. He submits that nothing survives in the

present O.A.

3. In the circumstances, office is directed to issue

notice to Shri V.D. Gunale, learned Advocate for the

applicant for remaining present in the present matter

on 27.9.2017.

VICE CHAIRMAN





OA 478/2014

(Amarjeet Vs. The State of Mah. & Ors.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------



Date : 28.08.2017

ORAL ORDER:-

None appears for the applicant. Shri V.R.

Bhumkar, learned P.O. for the respondents, is

present.

2. It appears that no interim relief was granted in

the issue of appointment of res. no. 3.

3. In view of absence of learned Advocate for the

applicant, the Office is directed to issue notice to Shri

Sanket S. Kulkarni, learned Adv. for remaining

present in the present matter on 27.9.2017.

VICE CHAIRMAN





OA 332/2014

(Swati Vs. The State of Mah. & Ors.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------



Date : 28.08.2017

ORAL ORDER:-

Heard Smt. Vidya Taksal, learned Adv. holding

for Shri S.B. Bhosale, learned Adv. for the applicant

and Shri V.R. Bhumkar, learned P.O. for the

respondents.

2. At the request of learned Adv. for the applicant,

S.O. to 26.9.2017.

VICE CHAIRMAN





MA 352/17 IN OA 770/07

(The State of Mah. & Ors. Vs. Narendra)

----------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------



Date : 28.08.2017

ORAL ORDER:-

Shri V.R. Bhumkar, learned P.O. for the

present applicants/ respondents in O.A., is present.

None appears for the present respondent / applicant

in O.A.

2. The learned P.O. submits that copy of the

present M.A. would be supplied to Shri H.A. Joshi,

learned Adv. for the present respondent / applicant

in O.A. At his request, S.O. to 12.9.2017.

VICE CHAIRMAN





OA 685/2015

(Rahul & Ors. Vs. The State of Mah. & Ors.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------



Date : 28.08.2017

ORAL ORDER:-

None appears for the applicants. Shri V.R.

Bhumkar, learned P.O. for the respondents, is

present.

2. Read the order dtd. 24.7.2017. the learned

Adv. for the applicant was required to make

submissions on instructions that would have been

received to him as highlighted in the earlier order.

3. In view of absence of learned Adv. for the

applicant, S.O. to 26.9.2017, for making submissions

on the line of the order dtd. 24.7.2017.

VICE CHAIRMAN





OA 889/2011

(Sunita Vs. The State of Mah. & Ors.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------


Date : 28.08.2017

ORAL ORDER:-

Heard Shri S.B. Gastgar, learned Adv. for the

applicant and Shri I.S. Thorat, learned P.O. for the

respondents.

2. Upon hearing, the learned Counsel for the

applicant, on instructions, submits that the applicant

would be satisfied, if the concerned respondents are

directed for considering the case of the applicant for

restoration to the earlier post as Matron from which

she was transferred, as can be seen from Exh. P page

63.

3. In the circumstances, O.A. is disposed of with a

direction to res. nos. 2 & 3 to consider the case of the

::-2-::

OA 889/2011

applicant for restoration to the post of Matron in case

any vacancy exists or arises in near future, within a

period of 6 months. With this direction the O.A. is

disposed of without any order as to costs.

VICE CHAIRMAN





MA 562/15 IN OA ST. 113/2015

(Ravindra Vs. The State of Mah. & Ors.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------


Date : 28.08.2017

ORAL ORDER:-

None appears for the applicant. Smt. Deepali S.

Deshpande, learned P.O. for the respondents, is

present.

2. The learned P.O. seeks time to file reply. It is

to be noted that vide order dtd. 28.4.2017 last

chance was granted therefor. Thereafter also, on 2

occasions, time was sought. In the circumstances,

S.O. to 26.9.2017 for filing reply with a further order

that in case no reply is filed on that day, the

concerned respondents shall deposit costs of Rs.

10,000/- by the Govt. account payee cheque in this

Tribunal.

3. Steno copy allowed to the P.O.

VICE CHAIRMAN



IN THE MAHARASHTRA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD

M.A.No.191/2017 IN O.A.St.No.519/2017(Sk. Md. Aminuddin V/s. State of Maharashtra&Ors.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM :B.P. PATIL,MEMBER (J)DATE : 28.08.2017.ORAL ORDER :

Heard ShriU.A.Khekale learned Advocate

for the applicant and ShriS.K.Shirselearned

Presenting Officer for the respondents.

2. Learned P.O. seeks time to file reply in the

M.A. Time granted.

3. S.O.26-09-2017.

MEMBER (J)YUK ORAL ORDER 28-8-2017 F

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEETIN THE MAHARASHTRA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,

AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.416/2016

(ShriRamhariGosawi V/s. State of Maharashtra &Ors)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Heard ShriD.T.Devane learned Advocate

holding for ShriM.B.Kolpe learned Advocate for

the applicant and ShriS.K.Shirselearned


2. Learned P.O. seeks time to file additional

affidavit in reply on behalf of the respondents.

Time granted.

3. S.O. 22-09-2017.




(ShriLaluPawar V/s.The State of Mah.&Ors.)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM :B. P. PATIL,MEMBER (J)DATE : 28.08.2017.ORAL ORDER :

Heard ShriD.T.Devane learned Advocate

holding for ShriM.B.Kolpe learned Advocate for

the applicant and ShriI.S.Thoratlearned


2. Learned P.O. seeks time to file additional


Time granted.

3. S.O. 22-09-2017.




ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.500/2016(ShriSaleem Khan Maseed KhanSukede V/s.

The State of Maharashtra &Ors.)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Heard ShriKakasaheb B. Jadhav learned

Advocate for the applicant,

ShriM.S.Mahajanlearned Chief Presenting Officer

for the respondents and ShriS.B.Mene learned

Advocate for respondent no.3.

2. Learned CPO seeks time to produce record

and keep Sub Divisional Magistrate-respondent

no.2 present before the Tribunal on the ground

that respondent no.2 is before the Hon’ble High

Court and concerned employeeShri More who is

in custody of record, is not feeling well.

3. At therequest of learned C.P.O., S.O. 01-09-

2017.




(Smt.ManjulaSuralkar V/s.The State of Mah.&Ors.)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Heard ShriN.K.Tungar learned Advocate for

the applicant and ShriS.K.Shirselearned


ShriN.L.Jadhav/K.N.Farooqui learned Advocate

for respondent no.4 (absent).

2. At the request of learned P.O., S.O.18-09-

2017 for producing record and keeping

responsible officer of the respondents present

before the Tribunal.




(ShriSantoshGhorpade V/s. State of Maharashtra&Ors.)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ShriArunShejwal learned Advocate for the

applicant is absent.ShriM.P.Gudelearned

Presenting Officer for the respondents is present.

2. Since none is present for the applicant,

S.O. to 05-10-2017.



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 262/2016(ShriDagdu V/s. State of Maharashtra &Ors. )

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Shri A.D. Gadekar, learned Advocate for the

applicant and Shri S.K. Shirse, learned

Presenting Officer for respondents.

2. Learned Advocate for the applicant seeks

time to file rejoinder affidavit. Time granted.

3. S.O. to 22.09.2017.

MEMBER (J)ORAL ORDER 28-8-2017 KPB


AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 892/2016(Smt. Babita V/s. State of Maharashtra &Ors.)



ShriAjeetMane, learned Advocate holding

for Shri S.D. Joshi, learned Advocate for the

applicant and Shri D.R. Patil, learned Presenting

Officer for respondents.



3. S.O. to 20.09.2017.



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 600/2016(ShriSadashiv V/sState of Maharashtra &Ors.)



Heard Shri S.P. Sathe, learned Advocate

holding for Shri K.M. Nagarkar, learned Advocate

for the applicant and Shri D.R. Patil, learned


2. Learned Presenting Officer has submitted

that there is no need to file affidavit in reply on

behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5.



4. S.O. to 21.09.2017.



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 405/2017

(ShriWali Abdul V/s. State of Maharashtra &Ors.)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ms. AnanghaPedgaonkar, learned Advocate

holding for ShriAjinkya Reddy, learned Advocate

for the applicant and Shri V.R. Bhumkar, learned


2. Learned Presenting Officer has filed

separate affidavit in replies on behalf of

respondent Nos. 2 and 4 respectively. Same are

taken on record and the copies thereof, have

been served on the learned Advocate for the

applicant.

3. S.O. to 26.09.2017.




(Shri Kailas V/s. State of Maharashtra &Ors.)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : B.P. PATIL, MEMBER (J)DATE : 28.08.2017.ORAL ORDER :

Heard Shri V.B. Wagh, learned Advocate for

the applicant and Shri M.S. Mahajan, learned Chief


2. Learned Advocate for the applicant has

submitted that the applicant has passed

examination of Stenography in Marathi having

speed of 100 w.p.m. and Marathi Typing speed of

30 w.p.m., when he was appointed as English

Stenographer in the year 2008. He has submitted

that in the year 2016, recovery of an amount of Rs.

80,224/- has been directed against him. But

thereafter, it had been stayed by the Director of

Prosecution, Mumbai, on 29.07.2016. He has

submitted that thereafter, Rules were amended on

24.03.2017, whereby though the persons who have

already passed Marathi Stenography and Marathi

typing examination at the time of their

appointment, are exempted for appearing for the

examination again. He has submitted that in spite

of the said fact, the respondent No. 3 issued

impugned order dated 10.08.2017 directing

recoveryof an amount of Rs. 80,224/- from the

salary of the applicant. He has submitted that the

said order is illegal and therefore, he prayed to stay

the execution of impugned order of recovery.

…2

//2// O.A. No. 589/2017

3. Learned C.P.O. seeks time to file detailed


4. On perusal of record, it reveals that the

impugned order has been issued in spite of the

fact that the said order has been stayed by the

Director of Prosecution, Mumbai on 29.07.2016.

There is nothing on record to show that the said

order has been withdrawn by the Director of

Prosecution, Mumbai. Moreover, in view of

amendment to Maharashtra Civil Services

(Compulsory Marathi Shorthand and Marathi

Typing Examination for English Stenographers

and English Typists) Rules 1991, the exemption

to appear for the examination is granted to the

employees already passed the examination at the

time of his appointment. In such circumstance, it

is just and proper to stay the execution of

impugned order till filing of affidavit in reply by

the respondents. Hence, the impugned order is

stayed till filing of the affidavit in reply by the

respondents.

5. Issue notices to the respondents,

returnable on 29.09.2017.

6. Tribunal may take the case for final

disposal at this stage and separate notice for

final disposal shall not be issued.

…3

//3// O.A. No. 589/2017

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 the case.

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.

9. The service may be done by hand delivery,

speed post, courier and acknowledgment be

obtained and produced along with affidavit of

compliance in the Registry before due date.

Applicant is directed to file affidavit of compliance

and notice.

10. S.O.to 29.09.2017.

11. Steno copy and Hamdast is allowed to bothparties.




(Smt. Kantabai V/s. State of Maharashtra &Ors.)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Heard Shri V.B. Wagh, learned Advocate for the

applicant and Shri M.S. Mahajan, learned Chief


2. Issue notices to the respondents, returnable on

26.09.2017.

3. Tribunal may take the case for final disposal atthis stage and separate notice for final disposal shallnot be issued.

4. Applicant is authorized and directed to serveon respondents intimation/notice of date of hearingduly authenticated by Registry, along with completepaper book of the case. Respondents are put tonotice that the case would be taken up for finaldisposal at the stage of admission hearing.

5. This intimation/notice is ordered under Rule11 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal(Procedure) Rules, 1988, and the questions such aslimitation and alternate remedy are kept open.

6. The service may be done by hand delivery,speed post, courier and acknowledgment be obtainedand produced along with affidavit of compliance inthe Registry before due date. Applicant is directed tofile affidavit of compliance and notice.

7. S.O.to 26.09.2017.

8. Steno copy and Hamdast is allowed to bothparties.



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADM.A. No. 349/2017 in O.A. St. No. 1166/2017

(ShriUdalsingh V/s. State of Maharashtra &Ors.)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Heard Shri A.L Kanade, learned Advocate

for the applicant and Shri M.S. Mahajan, learned

Chief Presenting Officer for respondents.


leave of this Tribunal to amend the M.A. by

calculating the period of delay caused in filing the

accompanying O.A. Leave granted as prayed for.

The applicant shall amend the Misc. Application

on or before next date.

3. S.O. to 03.10.2017



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADM.A. No. 350/2017 in O.A. St. No. 1168/2017

(ShriJanardhan V/s. State of Maharashtra &Ors.)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Heard Shri A.L Kanade, learned Advocate

for the applicant and Shri V.R. Bhumkar, learned



leave of this Tribunal to amend the M.A. by

calculating the period of delay caused in filing the

accompanying O.A. Leave granted as prayed for.

The applicant shall amend the Misc. Application

on or before next date.

3. S.O. to 03.10.2017



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADO.A. St. No. 372/2017

(ShriChandrakant V/s. State of Maharashtra &Ors.)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Heard Shri D.T. Devane, learned Advocate

for the applicant and Shri S.K. Shirse, learned

Chief Presenting Officer for respondents.


leave of this Tribunal to amend the pleadings and

prayer clauses suitably in view of the order

passed by the respondent No. 2 on 1.7.2017.

Leave granted as prayed for. The amendment be

carried out within a period of one week.

3. S.O. to 16.10.2017



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 601/2016(Smt. Sarla V/s. State of Maharashtra &Ors.)



Shri V.P. Golewar, learned Advocate for the

applicant (Absent). Shri M.P. Gude, learned

Presenting Officer for respondents, present.

2. As none present for the applicant, S.O. to

29.09.2017.



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 704/2016 WITH

CAVEAT NO. 299/2016(ShriPandurang V/s.State of Maharashtra &Ors.)



Shri R.D. Khadap, learned Advocate for the

applicant and Shri D.R. Patil, learned Presenting

Officer for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri P.S.

Dighe, learned Advocate for respondent No. 3

(Caveator), absent.



3. S.O. to 12.09.2017.



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 19/2017(ShriYogesh V/s. State of Maharashtra &Ors.)



Ms. Preeti R. Wankhade, learned Advocate

for the applicant and Smt. Deepali S. Deshpande,

learned Presenting Officer for respondents.

2. At the request of learned Advocate for the

applicant, S.O. to 04.09.2017.




(Smt. Subhadrabai V/s. State of Maharashtra &Ors.)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Shri S.K. Mathpati, learned Advocate for

the applicant (Absent). Shri V.R. Bhumkar,

learned Presenting Officer for respondents,

present.

2. Learned Presenting Officer seeks time to file

affidavit in reply on behalf of respondents. Time

granted.

3. S.O. to 25.09.2017.




(Smt. Sayashree V/s. State of Maharashtra &Ors.)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : SHRI B.P. PATIL,MEMBER (J)DATE : 28.08.2017.ORAL ORDER :

Shri S.B. Solanke, learned Advocate for the

applicant (Absent). Smt. Sanjivani K. Deshmukh-

Ghate, learned Presenting Officer for

respondents, present.

2. As none present for the applicant, S.O. to

04.10.2017.



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 276/2017(ShriPrashant V/s.State of Maharashtra &Ors.)



Shri K.J. Suryawanshi, learned Advocate

for the applicant (Absent). Shri M.P. Gude,



affidavit in reply on behalf of respondent Nos. 1

to 3. Same is taken on record.


affidavit in reply on behalf of respondent No. 4.

Time granted.

4. S.O. to 25.09.2017.



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 290/2017(Shri Sanjay V/s. State of Maharashtra &Ors.)



Shri V.B. Narke, learned Advocate holding

for Shri R.J. Godbole, learned Advocate for the

applicant and Shri M.P. Gude, learned Presenting

Officer for respondents.


time to file rejoinder affidavit. Time granted as a

last chance.

3. S.O. to 18.09.2017. Interim relief granted

earlier to continue till then.



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 340/2017(ShriKishor V/s. State of Maharashtra &Ors.)



Shri K.B. Jadhav, learned Advocate for the

applicant (Absent). Shri V.R. Bhumkar, learned

Presenting Officer for respondent 1, 2 & 4 and

ShriAshishRajkar, learned Advocate for

respondent No. 3, are present.

2. Learned Advocate for respondent No. 3 has

submitted that he will file affidavit in reply during

the course of the day.


affidavit in reply on behalf of respondent Nos. 1,

2 & 4. Time granted.

4. S.O. to 21.09.2017.



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 366/2017(Shri Kumar V/s. State of Maharashtra &Ors.)



Shri A.S. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for

the applicant, Shri M.S. Mahajan, learned Chief

Presenting Officer for respondent No. 1 and Shri

D.T. Devane, learned Advocate for respondent

Nos. 2 & 3.

2. At the request of learned Chief Presenting

Officer, S.O. to 11.09.2017. Interim relief granted

earlier to continue till then.




(Dr. Manoj V/s.State of Maharashtra &Ors.)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Heard Shri J.S. Deshmukh, learned

Advocate for the applicant and Shri M.S.

Mahajan, learned Chief Presenting Officer for

respondents.

2. At the request and by consent of both the

parties, S.O. to 25.09.2017.



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 491/2017(ShriSantosh V/s.State of Maharashtra &Ors.)



Shri S.M. Kamble, learned Advocate holding

for Shri S.S. Salve, learned Advocate for the

applicant and Shri M.S. Mahajan, learned Chief


2. Learned Chief Presenting Officer seeks time

to file affidavit in reply on behalf of respondents.

Time granted.

3. S.O. to 28.09.2017.



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 231/2017(Shri Rajesh V/s.State of Maharashtra &Ors.)




Advocate for the applicant and Shri M.P. Gude,


2. It is contention of the applicant that he was

placed under suspension by the impugned order

dated 22.10.2004. Thereafter, he was reinstated

in service by order date 22.09.2009, subject to

final decision in the criminal case. The applicant

was acquitted by the Special Judge, Kopergaon,

by the judgment and order dated 12.07.2013.

Thereafter, the applicant approached to the

respondent No. 2, by filing representation dated

3.6.2016, with a request to treat his suspension

period as duty period. The applicant has placed

reliance on the order passed by the respondent

No. 2 in case of similarly situated person on

3.5.2016, wherein the suspension period of that

…2

//2// O.A. No. 231/2017

employee was treated as duty period, as he was

acquitted of the offences charged against him.

The respondent No. 2 has not decided the

representation of the applicant dated 3.6.2016

till today. No specific reasons have been assigned

by the respondent No. 2 for not deciding the

representation of the applicant.

3. In these circumstances, it is just and

proper to direct the respondent No. 2 to decide

the representation of the applicant dated

3.6.2016 within a period of two months from the

date of this order. Accordingly, O.A. stands

disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2

to decide the representation of the applicant

dated 3.6.2016 within a period of two months

from the date of this order and shall be informed

the applicant about decision in writing. There

shall be no order as to costs.



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 232/2017(ShriDattatray V/s.State of Maharashtra &Ors.)




Advocate for the applicant and Shri V.R.

Bhumkar, learned Presenting Officer for

respondents.

2. It is contention of the applicant that he was

placed under suspension by the impugned order

dated 22.10.2004. Thereafter, he was reinstated

in service by order date 22.09.2009, subject to

final decision in the criminal case. The applicant

was acquitted by the Special Judge, Kopergaon,

by the judgment and order dated 12.07.2013.

Thereafter, the applicant approached to the

respondent No. 2, by filing representation dated

2.6.2016, with a request to treat his suspension

period as duty period. The applicant has placed

reliance on the order passed by the respondent

No. 2 in case of similarly situated person on

3.5.2016, wherein the suspension period of that

…2

//2// O.A. No. 232/2017

employee was treated as duty period, as he was

acquitted of the offences charged against him.

The respondent No. 2 has not decided the

representation of the applicant dated 2.6.2016

till today. No specific reasons have been assigned

by the respondent No. 2 for not deciding the

representation of the applicant.

3. In these circumstances, it is just and

proper to direct the respondent No. 2 to decide

the representation of the applicant dated

2.6.2016 within a period of two months from the

date of this order. Accordingly, O.A. stands

disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2

to decide the representation of the applicant

dated 2.6.2016 within a period of two months

from the date of this order and shall be informed

the applicant about decision in writing. There

shall be no order as to costs.


CHAMBER APPEAL NO. 04 OF 2017(Shri Kailas R. Shriramwar Vs.The State of Maharashtra and Others.)

CORAM : HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE M.T. JOSHI VICE CHAIRMAN

DATE : 28.08. 2017.

ORAL ORDER:

Heard Shri R.B. NarwadePatil – learned counsel for the

applicant.

2. Vide order dated 21.08.2017 the Registrar of this Tribunal

Bench at Aurangabad was pleased to refuse the registration under

Rule 5 (4) of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (Procedural)

Rules, 1988. On 10.07.2017 the office has raised the following

office objections: -

1) Annextures are not mentioned properly;

2) Page No. 32 not legible;

3. The learned Advocate for the applicant appeared today and

has undertaken to remove all the office objections today itself.

4. Technically the Registrar was right in refusing the

registration since nobody appeared for the applicant in view of the

objection in spite of repeated chances. The learned counsel for the

applicant submits that he could

:: - 2 - ::CHAMBER APPEAL NO.04 OF 2017

not attend the Tribunal due to his personal difficulty and,

therefore, the registration was refused. The fact that the O.A. is

filed for direction to the respondents to give the applicant all the

benefits of seniority, continuity of service, ay scale along with back

wages considering 23.12.2009 as his initial deemed date of

appointment and for that purpose issue necessary orders and in

order to give an opportunity to the applicant to prove his claim on

merits, it will be in the interest of justice to allow the appeal as the

applicant shall not suffer for the negligence of his Advocate.

5. In view of the above, I pass the following order:

O R D E R

(i) Chamber Appeal No. 04/2017 is allowed as the learned

Advocate for the applicant has undertaken to remove all the

office objections. On removal of office objections, the

Registrar of this Tribunal Bench at Aurangabad is directed to

place this matter before the appropriate Bench for hearing.

MEMBER (J)YUK ORAL ORDER 28-08-2017 F-HDD28.08.2017


AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADM. A. NO.358/2014 IN O. A. ST.NO.1184/2014

(Dr. Chate Vs. The State of Mah. & Ors.)---------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE

ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------CORAM: JUSTICE M. T. JOSHI, V. C.

(This matter is placed before the Single Bench

due to non-availability of Division Bench.)DATE : 28-08-2017

ORAL ORDER:-

None present for the applicant. Heard Smt S. K. Ghate

Deshmukh learned Presenting Officer for the respondents no.1 to 3.

None present for the Respondent no.4.

2. The learned P.O. files on record copy of the communication

received by her. The same is accepted and marked as document “X” for

the purpose of identification. It would show that, still “the process is

going on”. It is also necessary to point out the order dated 12.06.2017.

In the said order it is highlighted that, not only the present M.A. is

pending since long even the decision on the proposal dated 14.09.2004

as referred in the order dated 22.3.2017 is also pending. It was ordered

that the proposal be decided within 3 months.

3. In the circumstances, the M.A. was adjourned to 03.07.2017

subject to the cost of Rs.10,000/- by Govt.cheque. Thereafter, again

on 3.7.2017 and 27.7.2017 though time was granted no action was

taken and even the cost was not deposited.

4. Further, the present communication from the Deputy Director

would show that, “process is going on”, at the directorate level though

-2- M. A. NO.358/2014 IN O. A. ST.NO.1184/2014

the Respondent no.2 the Director is also party to the present

proceeding.

5. In the circumstances, it appears that, coercive action like calling

Respondent no.2 in the Tribunal has become inevitable due to the

conduct of the Respondent no.2.

6. In the circumstances, S. O. to 26.09.2017. The Respondent no.2

shall personally remain present before the Tribunal and also to deposit

the costs as directed earlier, failing which coercive action like initiating

proceeding for contempt would be started.

7. The learned P.O. is directed to act on the Steno copy of this order.

VICE CHAIRMAN.ORAL ORDERS 28-08-2017-ATP


AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADO. A. NO.70/2017.

(Shri Shendge Vs. The State of Mah. & Ors.)---------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE

ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM: JUSTICE M. T. JOSHI, V. C.



ORAL ORDER:-

Heard Mrs. Vidya Taksal learned Advocate holding for Shri A.

S. Deshmukh learned Advocate for the applicant and Shri M. S.

Mahajan learned Chief Presenting Officer for the respondents.

2. The learned C.P.O. seeks time to file reply to the amended

application. Time granted as a last chance.

3. S. O. to 27.09.2017.




(Shri Chatre Vs. The State of Mah. & Ors.)---------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICEORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS

----------------------------------------------------------------------CORAM: JUSTICE M. T. JOSHI, V. C.



ORAL ORDER:-

None present for the applicant. Heard Shri V. R. Bhumkar

learned Presenting Officer for the respondents.

2. The applicant was required to satisfy the query raised by this

Tribunal as has been highlighted vide order dated 09.08.2017.

3. In view of absence of the learned Advocate for the applicant,

S. O. to 09.09.2017 for satisfying the query.




(Shri Pathan Vs. The State of Mah. & Ors.)---------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICEORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS------------------------------------------------------------------------------CORAM: JUSTICE M. T. JOSHI, V. C.



ORAL ORDER:-

Heard Shri A. D. Sonar learned Advocate for the applicant

and Shri I. S. Thorat learned Presenting Officer for the

respondents.

2. Read the orders dated 11.4.2017 as well as 27.07.2017. The

learned P.O. submits that, he is yet to receive any instructions

regarding the specific reply as has been directed vide order dated

11.04.2017. On the last date it was therefore, warned that, the

Tribunal would be constrained to take coerceive action including

imposing of heavy costs, still no instructions are being given to the

learned P.O.

-2- ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.156/2017

3. The learned Advocate for the applicant submits

that, the applicant is going to retire on 31.8.2017.

4. In the circumstances, S. O. to 31.08.2017 for filing

affidavit on the line of the order dated 11.04.2017 with a

condition that, in case no affidavit is filed on that day the

Respondent no.1 shall deposit a cost of Rs.25,000/- by

Govt. cheque on that day.

5. The learned P.O. is directed to act on the Steno

copy of this order.




(Shri Shelke Vs. The State of Mah. & Ors.)---------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE

ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS------------------------------------------------------------------------------




ORAL ORDER:-

Heard Shri V. G. Pingle learned Advocate holding for Shri U.

S. Sawji learned Advocate for the applicant and Shri M. S.

Mahajan learned Chief Presenting Officer for the respondents.

2. Shri V. G. Pingle learned Advocate holding for Shri U. S.

Sawji learned Advocate for the applicant seeks time. At his

request, S. O. to 04.10.2017.




(Dr. Kale Vs. The State of Mah. & Ors.)----------------------------------------------------------------------OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS

------------------------------------------------------------------------------




ORAL ORDER:-

Heard Dr. Kole Nagnath Vinayakrao, the Applicant,

party in person and Shri M. S. Mahajan learned Chief


2. The learned Chief Presenting Officer seeks time to

file affidavit in reply. At his request, S. O. to 26.09.2017.




(Shri Pofale Vs. The State of Mah. & Ors.)---------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE





ORAL ORDER:-

None present for the applicant. Heard Shri V. R.

Bhumkar,learned Presenting Officer for the respondents no.1 & 2

and Miss Vanita Panpatil learned Advocate holding for Shri S. B.

Talekar learned Advocate for the Respondents no.3 & 4.

2. Miss Vanita Panpatil learned Advocate holding for Shri S. B.

Talekar learned Advocate for the Respondents no.3 & 4 seeks time

to file affidavit in reply. At the request of herself as well as the

learned P.O., S. O. to 27.09.2017.



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADO. A. Nos. 268, 269, 270 & 271 of 2017.

(Shri Machave & 3 Oths. Vs. The State of Mah. & Ors.)---------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE





ORAL ORDER:-

Heard Miss Ashlesha Raut learned Advocate holding for Shri

S. B. Talekar learned Advocate for the applicants in all the O.As.

and Shri M. S. Mahajan,learned Chief Presenting Officer for the

respondents in all the matters.

2. The learned C.P.O. seeks time to file affidavit in reply. At his

request S. O. to 26.09.2017.



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADM.A. NO.254/16 IN OA ST.NO.558/2016.(Shri Kandke Vs. The State of Mah. & Ors.)

---------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICEORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------CORAM: JUSTICE M. T. JOSHI, V. C.



ORAL ORDER:-

None appears for the applicant. Heard Smt S. K. Ghate Deshmukh

learned Presenting Officer for the respondents no.1 & 2 and Shri G. N.

Patil learned Advocate for the Respondent no.3.

2. The clarification from the side of the applicant as detailed vide

order dated 26.7.2017 is not forthcoming. In the circumstances and in

view of absence of the learned Advocate for the applicant, S. O. to

26.9.2017 for satisfying the query as raised by this Tribunal vide order

dated 26.7.2017 or for passing order in default.



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADM. A. NO.64/2017 IN O. A. ST.NO.100/2017.(Shri Sonkamble Vs. The State of Mah. & Ors.)---------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE

ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------




ORAL ORDER:-

Heard Miss Vanita Panpatil learned Advocate holding for Shri V.

B. Wagh learned Advocate for the applicant and Shri S. K. Shirse

learned Presenting Officer for the respondents.

2. The learned P.O. seeks time to file reply. He further submits that,

the subject in the present O.A. is the subject matter of the Writ Petition

in the Hon'ble High Court. At his request, S. O. to 26.09.2017.



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADO. A. NO. 658/2017.

(Shri Ambalkar Vs. The State of Mah. & Ors.)---------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE

ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------CORAM: JUSTICE M. T. JOSHI, V. C.



ORAL ORDER:-

None appears for the applicant. Heard Shri M. P. Gude learned


2. The record would show that, since the ex-parte grant of interim

relief on 16.5.2017 neither the applicant nor his counsel has turned to

collect the notices despite grant of opportunities for five times since

then.

3. Further, the second set of the application is also not filed. The

application is therefore, dismissed in default. The interim relief stands

vacated.


Date post:	01-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE MAHARASHTRA … ORAL ORDER 28-08... · farad continuation sheet in...

Documents