SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 75

A.K.MATHUR, HARJIT SINGH BEDI
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Appellant
Versus
UTTAM VISHNU PAWAR – Respondent


ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Delay condoned in SLP(C) No. 20630/2006.

3. Leave granted in the special leave petitions.

4. All these appeals involve similar question of law therefore they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by a common order.

5. The facts given in C.A. No. 1021/2002 (State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Uttam Vishnu Pawar) are taken into consideration for disposal of these appeals.

6. The respondent-Uttam Vishnu Pawar filed Original Application No. 930/1999 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Mumbai and sought a direction that his services which have been rendered by him in the earlier department may be counted for computing the period of 12 years service for Time Bound Promotion as per Government Resolution dated 8.6.1995. The Tribunal vide its order dated 14th March, 2000 allowed the claim of the respondent and held that the services rendered by the incumbent in the previous department shall be counted in computing the period of 12 years for Time Bound Promotion Scheme. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Tribunal, the State of Maharashtra-appellant herein filed a writ











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top