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

2021 Supreme(Bom) 1230

RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, S.G.MEHARE
Nitin – Appellant
Versus
Central Bank Of India, Mumbai – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Upadhye Vinayak Narayan, Advocate, Warad Sunil V, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner has put forth prayer clauses A and B as under :-

"A) That a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India be issued calling for the records and proceedings from the Respondent being an order dated 25.01.2018 and communicated through a letter dated 31.03.2018 marked at Annexure F and examine the legality, validity and propriety thereof and be pleased to quash and/or set aside the same;

B) Issue direction/ order to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with law and as per the scheme in existence."

3. The father of the petitioner, namely, Yohan Paulas Arawade was in employment with the respondent/ Central Bank of India as the Special Assistant at the Kolegaon Branch, District Ahmednagar. He put in 34 years and 02 months in employment when he opted for Voluntary Retirement (VRS) on medical grounds since the Permanent Medical Board of the respondent/ Bank examined him and certified that he was "completely

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