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

Pradip Ramesh Shinde – Appellant
Versus
Malegaon Municipal Corporation – Respondent


JUDGMENT:

1. Heard Ms. Manesh, learned Advocate for Petitioners and Mr. Patwardhan, learned Advocate for Respondent - Corporation.

2. This is a group of four Writ Petitions which are decided by this common judgment. By consent of parties, Writ Petitions are heard and disposed of finally. Facts are almost identical in all four cases concerning Petitioners - Employees and Respondent - Malegaon Municipal Corporation (for short 'the said Corporation').

3. Facts in Writ Petition No.7949 of 2025 and Writ Petition No.8004 of 2025 concerning Pradip Ramesh Shinde and Bhushan Suresh Thakre, who were both appointed as Driver on daily wages by appointment order dated 27.02.2017 are identical.

4. Facts in Writ Petition No.7951 of 2025 and Writ Petition No.7954 of 2025 concerning Sunil Ananda Bagul and Sheikh Javid Sheikh Rashid, who were both appointed as Firemen on daily wages by appointment order dated 07.04.2017 are identical.

5. Save and except the aforesaid distinction, all other facts are absolutely identical right upto filing of the present Writ Petitions by Petitioners. Hence for the sake of brevity detailed facts in the case of Writ Petition No.7949 of 2025 shall be referred to and re

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