farad continuation sheet in the maharashtra … orde 20122017.p… · [ms. neha k. parve vs. state...

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEETIN THE MAHARASHTRA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,

AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 933 OF 2017

[Ms. Neha K. Parve Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others]----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : JUSTICE M.T. JOSHI, V.C.(This matter is placed before the SingleBench due to non-availability of DivisionBench.)

DATE : 20.12.2017.ORAL ORDER :

Heard Shri Sanket S. Kulkarni, learned

Advocate for the applicant and Mrs. Priya R.

Bharaswadkar, learned Presenting Officer for the

respondents.

3. Learned Advocate for the applicant seeks time.

At his request, S.O. to 2nd January, 2018.

VICE CHAIRMANORAL ORDERS 20.12.2017-HDD



[Anjali K. Kendre Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others]----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Heard Shri S.D. Munde, learned Advocate for

the applicant and Mrs. Priya R. Bharaswadkar,

learned Presenting Officer for the respondents.

2. Issue notices to the respondents, returnable on

30th January, 2018.

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 O.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

:: - 2 - ::O.A. NO. 944 OF 2017

the Registry within one week. Applicants are directed

to file Affidavit of compliance and notice.

7. In the meantime appointments made, if anyshall be subject to the decision of the presentoriginal application.

8. S.O. to 30th January, 2018.

9. Steno copy and hamdust is allowed to both theparties.




[Sangita G. Chaudhari Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others]----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




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

Presenting Officer for the respondents.


30th January, 2018.



not be issued.














:: - 2 - ::O.A. NO. 945 OF 2017








AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADORIGINAL APPLICATION ST. NO. 1928 OF 2017

[Kalyani D. Patil & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others]----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




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



30th January, 2018.



not be issued.














:: - 2 - ::O.A. ST.NO. 1928 OF 2017








AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADM.A.NO. 512/2017 IN O.A.ST.NO. 1928/2017

[Kalyani D. Patil & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others]----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




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


2. This is an application preferred by the

applicants seeking leave to sue jointly.

3. For the reasons stated in the application, and

since the cause and the prayers are identical and

since the applicants have prayed for same relief, and

to avoid the multiplicity, leave to sue jointly granted,

subject to payment of court fee stamps, if not paid,

and accompanying O.A. be registered and numbered,

and the present M.A. stands disposed of accordingly.

No order as to costs.




[Shri Dilip S. Karle Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others]----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Heard Shri Deepanjan D.R., learned Advocate

holding for Shri S.B. Talekar, learned Advocate for



2. Learned Chief Presenting Officer for the

respondents seeks time in view of the fact that the

proposal is now sent to the Government as detailed in

the order dated 1.11.2017. At his request, S.O. to

30th January, 2018 for a decision on the line of the

order dated 1.11.2017.




[Shri Balu J. Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others]----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Heard Shri Sandip Kulkarni, learned Advocate

holding for Shri S.D. Dhongde, learned Advocate for

the applicant and Shri V.R. Bhumkar, learned


2. At the request of learned Advocate for the

applicant, S.O. to 24th January, 2018.




[Shri Vijaysing H. Bagul Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others]----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Heard Shri K.B. Jadhav, learned Advocate

holding for Shri A.D. Gadekar, learned Advocate for

the applicant and Shri M.P. Gude, learned Presenting

Officer for the respondents.


applicant, S.O. to 23rd January, 2018.



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADC.P.NO. 07/2017 IN O.A.NO. 353/2017

[Smt. Shobha B. Khade Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others]----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Heard Shri Kakasaheb B. Jadhav, learned

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

learned Presenting Officer for the respondents, withconsent.

2. Learned Presenting Officer has filed affidavit in

reply on behalf of respondent No. 1 along with

decision in the appeal at Annexure “A”, which would

show that the order in the O.A. is complied.

Therefore, nothing survives in the present contempt

petition. The same is, therefore, disposed of without

any order as to costs.




[Shri Kishan P. Ghodekar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others]----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

applicant and Mrs. Deepali S. Deshpande, learned



applicant, S.O. to 21st January, 2017.




[Smt. Varsharani S. Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others]----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Heard Shri Sandip S. Chakurkar, learned

Advocate for the applicant and Shri I.S. Thorat,


2. It is unfortunate that Superintendent of Police,

Latur, Dr. Shivaji Rathod, does not know the name of

the law i.e. Constitution of India or “Indian Penal

Constitution” though he has used the same while

passing the order dated 07.06.2017 (Annexure “A-3”,

page-20 & 21). The order prima facie even does not

show that the parameters required for taking action

under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India

has been at all advert to.

3. In the circumstances, Superintendent ofPolice, Latur, Dr. Shivaji Rathod, is directed topersonally reconsider the issue, if required bytaking legal opinion and to take corrective steps.

Report in that regard shall be filed on the next date.

4. In case, the Superintendent of Police, Latur,Dr. Shivaji Rathod comes to the conclusion thatno corrective steps can be taken, then a brief

:: - 2 - ::

O.A. NO. 496 OF 2017

affidavit explaining the reasons for not takingcorrective steps shall be filed on the next date.

5. S.O. to 23rd January, 2018 for compliance of

the above line.




[Shri Mahadu R. Munmane Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others]----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Heard Shri Deepanjan D.R., learned Advocate

holding for Shri S.B. Talekar, learned Advocate for



2. Learned Chief Presenting Officer for the

respondents has filed separate affidavits in reply on

behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 4 and the same are

taken on record and the copies thereof have been

served on the learned Advocate for the applicant.

3. The results are still awaited. S.O. to 30th

January, 2018 for hearing on admission and/or the

effect of result declared, if any.




[Shri Badri D. Babar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others]----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Heard Shri S.K. Mathpati, learned Advocate for

the applicant and Mrs. Priya R. Bharaswadkar,


2. Learned Presenting Officer for the respondents

has filed affidavit in reply on behalf of respondent No.

1 and the same is taken on record and the copy

thereof has been served on the learned Advocate for

the applicant.

3. The results are still awaited. S.O. to 30th

January, 2018 for hearing on admission and/or the

effect of result declared, if any.




[Smt. Sujata D. Hingole Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others]----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Shri G.K. Kshirsagar, learned Advocate for the

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

Presenting Officer for the respondents, present.

2. At the request of learned Presenting Officer for

the respondents, S.O. to 29th January, 2018 for filing

affidavit in reply.




[Shri Ankush M. Thorat Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others]----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Heard Shri V.B. Wagh, learned Advocate

holding for Shri G.S. Patil, learned Advocate for the

applicant and Smt. Resha S. Deshmukh, learned

Presenting Officer for the respondents, with consent.

2. Learned Advocate for the applicant, on

instructions, submits that since the grievance of the

present applicant is redressed, the applicant does not

want to proceed with the present original application

and wants to withdraw the same.

3. Permission granted. Withdrawal is allowed.

Accordingly, the present original application is

disposed of as withdrawn without any order as to

costs.




[Shri Swapnil S. Mane Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others]----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Heard Shri Prashant Deshmukh, learned

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

learned Presenting Officer for the respondents, byconsent.

2. Learned Advocate for the applicant, on

instructions, submits that the grievance of the

present applicant is redressed as the appointment

order is issued in his favour. He has filed a copy of

the appointment order and the same is taken on

record and marked as document ‘X’ for identification

purpose.

3. In view of the above statement, nothing

survives in the present original application and,

therefore, the same is disposed of without any order

as to costs.




[Shri Vijay L. Tarode Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others]----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Heard Shri P.P. Uttarwar, learned Advocate

holding for Shri S.S. Thombre, learned Advocate for

the applicant and Smt. Sanjivani Deshmukh-Ghate,







[Shri Fakirsaheb B. Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others]----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Heard Shri S.G. Kulkarni, learned Advocate

holding for Shri R.P. Bhumkar, learned Advocate for

the applicant and Smt. Resha S. Deshmukh, learned






AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADM.A.NO. 81/17 IN M.A.ST.153/17 IN O.A.154/17

[Shri Uttam T. Dabhade & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others]----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





the applicant and Mrs. Deepali S. Deshpande,






AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADM.A.NO. 254/2013 IN O.A.NO. 124/2003

[Shri Rajaram B. Virulkar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others]----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





the applicant and Shri S.K. Shirse, learned






AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 899/2017

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

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

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


None appears for the applicant. Shri S.K.

Shirse, learned Presenting Officer for respondent

nos. 1 to 3. None appears for respondent no. 4.

2. No service affidavit is filed on record to

show that the notices are served on res. no. 1. In

the circumstances, S.O. to 30.1.2018 for taking

steps for filing service affidavit or taking steps for

issuing fresh notices to the concerned

respondent.

VICE CHAIRMAN

ARJ ORAL ORDERS 20-12-2017



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




Heard Shri Ajay Deshpande, learned

Advocate for the applicant and Smt. Priya R.

Bharaswadkar, learned Presenting Officer for

respondents.

2. The learned Advocate for the applicant

places on record copy of subsequent order dtd.

14.12.2017 passed by the principal seat of this

tribunal at Mumbai in O.A. no. 1128/2017. It

appears from the said order that the interim relief

granted in the said matter earlier is continued.

In the circumstances, S.O. to 10.1.2018 on

which date the notices issued in the present

matter are already made returnable, for filing

affidavit in reply by the respondents. The interim

relief to continue till then.

VICE CHAIRMAN



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADM.A. NO. 440/2017 IN M.A. NO. 447/2017 IN O.A. NO. 662/2017

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




Heard Shri V.B. Wagh, learned Advocate for

the applicant in M.A. no. 440/2017, Shri I.S.

Thorat, learned Presenting Officer for respondent

nos. 1 & 2 and Shri S.R. Roundale, learned

Advocate for respondent no. 3 in M.A. no.

440/2017 / applicant in O.A. no. 662/2017.

2. Shri Roundale, learned Advocate has filed

written notes of arguments as well as copies of

judgments in M.A. 440/2017 in O.A. no.

662/2017. Shri Wagh, learned Advocate has

also filed written notes of arguments on behalf of

res. no. 3 in O.A. no. 662/2017. In the

circumstances, S.O. to 21.12.2017 for orders.

VICE CHAIRMAN



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADM.A. NO. 358/2014 IN O.A. ST. 1184/2014(Dr. Gangadhar D. Chate V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)

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




None appears for the applicant. Smt.

Sanjivani Deshmukh Ghate, learned Presenting

Officer for respondents, is present.

2. The learned P.O. files on record affidavit in

reply of res. no. 3 as per earlier orders of the

Tribunal. It is taken on record. He undertakes

to serve its copy upon the learned Advocate for

the applicant. Para 5 of the said reply of res. no.

3 shows that a proposal is not sent to the

Government and upon receipt of sanction, a

deemed date of promotion shall be granted to the

applicant.

3. In view of the fact that the res. no. 1 is the

State of Maharashtra and res. no. 3 is the

Secretary, Public Health Department & Rural

Development Department, Mumbai, both the

respondents are directed to take a decision at the

earliest and in any event on or before the next

date on the proposal sent by the res. no. 2 – the

Director of Health Services, Mumbai. In the

::-2-::M.A. NO. 358/2014 IN

O.A. ST. 1184/2014

circumstances, S.O. to 7.1.2018 for compliance

from the side of respondents.

4. Steno copy allowed for the use of learned

P.O.

VICE CHAIRMAN



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADM.A. NO. 501/2017 IN O.A. NO. 759/2017(Mrs. Rohini S. Deokar V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)






the applicant and Shri M.S. Mahajan, learned

Chief Presenting Officer for respondents.

2. Both the sides submit that, they are not

prepared today. The issue of jurisdiction is

required to be heard. It is further necessary to

find out the nature of Maharashtra State Aids

Control Society. It is also to be gathered,

whether it is a organization of State of

Maharashtra or any other society. Therefore, on

14.12.2017 both the sides took time for filing

additional documents on record. Today both the

sides seek accommodation. At their request S.O.

to 5.1.2018 for filing additional documents and

for hearing.

VICE CHAIRMAN



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADM.A. NO. 197/2017 IN OA ST. 526/2017(Chetan Y. Thakur V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)





Heard Shri A.N. Gaddime, learned Advocate

holding for Shri N.L. Choudhary, learned

Advocate for the applicant and Smt. Sanjivani

Deshmukh Ghate, learned Presenting Officer for

respondents.


applicant, S.O. to 30.1.2018.

VICE CHAIRMAN



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 509/2013(Mohan B. Pawar V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)





Shri A.D. Sugdare, learned Advocate for the

applicant (leave note). Smt. Sanjivani

Deshmukh Ghate, learned Presenting Officer for

respondent nos. 1 to 3 is present. None appears

for respondent no. 4.

2. The learned P.O. submits that office file of

the present matter in the office of C.P.O. is

misplaced. Both the sides have to submit on the

line of orders dtd. 9.8.2017 and 27.9.2017. In

the circumstances, S.O. to 15.1.2018 for making

submissions by both the sides on the line of

order dtd. 9.8.2017 and 27.9.2017.

VICE CHAIRMAN




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




Heard Shri M.P. Gandle, learned Advocate

holding for Shri S.P. Salgar, learned Advocate for

the applicant and Smt. Priya R. Bharaswadkar,

learned Presenting Officer for respondent nos. 1

to 3 and Shri S.S. Jadhavar, learned Advocate for

respondent nos. 4 & 5.

2. The learned P.O. submits that explanation

to the show cause notice imposing costs has been

given by the res. no. 2 in para no. 4 of his

affidavit in reply.

3. The learned Advocates for the applicant and

res. no. 5 seek time. In the circumstances, at

their request S.O. to 24.1.2018 for hearing, and

also on the explanation as above.

VICE CHAIRMAN



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADO.A. NO. 380/2017 (D.B.) WITH O.A. NO. 792/2015 (S.B.)

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




Heard Shri Vishnu Dhoble, learned

Advocate for the applicant in both the matters,

Shri M.S. Mahajan, learned Chief Presenting

Officer for respondent authorities in both the

matters and Shri A.S. Deshmukh, learned

Advocate for respondent nos. 3 to 5 in O.A. no.

792/2015.

2. The learned C.P.O. seeks time to file own

affidavit of Secretary, Medical Education and

Drugs Department as per order dtd. 27.11.2017.

At his request, S.O. to 23.1.2018. Both these

matters be kept together.

VICE CHAIRMAN




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




None appears for the applicant. Shri M.S.

Mahajan, learned Chief Presenting Officer for

respondents, is present.

2. Shri M.B. Sandanshiv, learned Advocate for

the applicant is absent, though on yesterday he

sought adjournment for one day. The record

would show that on 13.6.2017 a query was

raised by the Tribunal and thereafter the then

learned Advocate for the applicant Shri B.S.

Deshmukh sought time for many times to satisfy

the query. Thereafter, the applicant has engaged

another Advocate viz. Shri Sandanshiv. He also

took many adjournments for satisfying the said

query. Today the applicant or his learned

Advocate is absent. In the circumstances, the

present O.A. is dismissed in default without any

order as to costs.

VICE CHAIRMAN




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




Heard Shri B.R. Kedar, learned Advocate for

the applicant and Shri S.K. Shirse, learned

Presenting Officer for respondents.

2. Upon hearing both the sides, it appears

that arguable case is made out. Hence, the

present matter is admitted.

3. The matter is removed from the board for

the time being and it be placed before the

Division Bench for final hearing as and when it is

available.

VICE CHAIRMAN




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




None appears for the applicants. Shri D.R.

Patil, learned Presenting Officer for respondents,

is present.

2. In view of absence of learned Advocate for

the applicant, S.O. to 1.2.2018 for hearing on

admission.

VICE CHAIRMAN



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADM.A. 513/2017 WITH M.A. 514/2017 IN O.A. 904/2017

(Sindhu T. Mundhe V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OFFICE ORDER TRIBUNAL’S ORDERS




Heard Shri S.S. Jadhavar, learned Advocate

for the applicant and Smt. Priya R.


respondents.

2. The present misc. application has been filed

by the applicant for permission to amend the

O.A. as per the draft amendment annexed with

the M.A. at Anne. A-1. The learned Advocate

submits that by the said amendment the

applicant wants to show as to what is the upper

age limit for Open category.

3. For the reasons stated in the M.A. it is

allowed and disposed of without any order as to

costs and the applicant is permitted to amend

the O.A. suitably. The applicant to carry out

amendment in the O.A. during the course of the

day.

VICE CHAIRMAN



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADM.A. 514/2017 IN O.A. 904/2017






for the applicant and Smt. Priya R.


respondents.

2. The present misc. application has been filed

by the applicant issuance of direction to the res.

no. 2 to call the applicant for interview and to

consider her candidature for the seats reserved

for Open Female category.

3. Considering the issue raised in the present

M.A. regarding right of the applicant to be

considered from Open Female category, without

going into the merits of the case, on finding that

the applicant has applied from Open Female

category and has also paid the requisite fees

therefor, by way of interim relief it is hereby

directed that the applicant be called for oral

interview on the date suitable to the concerned

respondents by issuing usual notice as were

issued to other candidates, who were called for

interview.

::-2-::M.A. 514/2017 IN

O.A. 904/2017

4. Accordingly, the M.A. is disposed of without

any order as to costs.

5. Steno copy allowed for the use of both the

sides.

VICE CHAIRMAN



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADO.A. NO. 535/2015 WITH O.A. NO. 575/2013

(Smt. Subhangi & Ors. and Shri Sharad & Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra& Ors.)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CORAM : JUSTICE M.T. JOSHI, V.C.DATE : 20.12.2017.ORAL ORDER :


for the applicants in both the matters and Shri

N.U. Yadav, learned Presenting Officer for

respondents in both the matters.

2. The learned P.O. files on record additional

affidavit in reply in both the matters as per the

order of the Tribunal dtd. 23.8.2017. The same

are taken on record and copies thereof are served

upon the learned Advocate for the applicants. In

the circumstances, S.O. to 24.1.2018 for hearing

on admission.

VICE CHAIRMAN




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


None appears for the applicant. Shri V.R.

Bhumkar, learned Presenting Officer for

respondents, is present.

2. The learned P.O. files on record additional

affidavit in reply of res. no. 2 in view of order dtd.

9.10.2017. It is taken on record. He undertakes

to serve its copy upon the learned Advocate for

the applicant.

3. In view of absence of learned Advocate for

the applicant, S.O. to 30.1.2018 for further

hearing

VICE CHAIRMAN




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


None appears for the applicant. Smt.

Sanjivani Deshmukh Ghate, learned Presenting

Officer for respondents, is present.

2. The learned P.O. submits that, issue

involved in the present matter is still pending for

adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

as referred in the order dtd. 26.4.2017 and the

stay granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to

the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court is

still continued.

3. In that view of the matter, the present O.A.

is removed from the board for time being with a

liberty to both the sides to circulate the matter as

and when the decision would be rendered by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court.

VICE CHAIRMAN



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADO.A. 904/2017





Heard Shri S.S. Jadhavar, learned Advocate for theapplicant and Smt. Priya R. Bharaswadkar, learnedPresenting Officer for respondents.

2. Today by passing separate order in M.A. no.513/2017 the applicant is permitted to amend the O.A.during the course of the day.

3. In the circumstances, after amendment is carriedout, issue notices to the respondents in the O.A.,returnable on 9.1.2018.

4. Tribunal may take the case for final disposal at thisstage and separate notice for final disposal shall not beissued.

5. Applicant is authorized and directed to serve onrespondents intimation/notice of date of hearing dulyauthenticated by Registry, along with complete paper bookof O.A. Respondents are put to notice that the case wouldbe taken up for final disposal at the stage of admissionhearing.

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

7. The service may be done by hand delivery, speedpost, courier and acknowledgment be obtained andproduced along with affidavit of compliance in the Registrybefore due date. Applicant is directed to file affidavit ofcompliance and notice.

8. S.O. to 9.1.2018.9. Steno copy allowed to the both the sides.

VICE CHAIRMANARJ ORAL ORDERS 20-12-2017



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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CORAM : B. P. PATIL, MEMBER (J)DATE : 20.12.2017.ORAL ORDER :

Shri A.N. Gaddime, learned Advocate

holding for Shri N.L. Choudhari, learned

Advocate for the applicant and Shri N.U. Yadav,

learned Presenting Officer for respondents.


applicant, S.O. to 04.01.2018. Interim relief

granted earlier to continue till then.

MEMBER (J)KPB ORAL ORDER 20-12-2017



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


Shri V.B. Wagh, learned Advocate for the

applicant and Shri V.R. Bhumkar, learned

Presenting Officer for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

Shri S.T. Shelke, learned Advocate for respondent

No. 4, absent.

2. Learned Presenting Officer has filed

separate affidavit in replies on behalf of

respondent Nos. 1 & 2 respectively. Same are

taken on record and the copy thereof has been

served on the learned Advocate for the applicant.





AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADM.A. No.163/2017 in O.A. St. No. 487/2017

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



applicant and Shri D.R. Patil, learned Presenting

Officer for respondents.

2. Learned Presenting Officer seeks time to file

affidavit in reply on behalf of respondents in M.A.

Time granted.

3. S.O. to 18.01.2018.




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



applicant and Smt. Deepali S. Deshpande,



reply to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the learned

Advocate for the applicant. Time granted.

3. S.O. to 17.01.2018. Interim relief granted

earlier to continue till then.




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


Shri R.L. Chintalwar, learned Advocate for

the applicant and Shri I.S. Thorat, learned



affidavit in reply on behalf of respondent Nos. 2

to 5. Same is taken on record and the copy

thereof has been served on the learned Advocate

for the applicant.

3. S.O. to 23.01.2018.




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


Shri S.D. Joshi, learned Advocate for the

applicant and Shri D.R. Patil, learned Presenting

Officer for respondents.






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


Shri A.D. Sugdare, learned Advocate for the

applicant (Leave Note). Shri S.K. Shirse, learned

Presenting Officer for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and

Shri Amit Dhongde, learned Advocate holding for

Shri S.D. Dhongde, learned Advocate for

respondent Nos. 3 & 4, are present.

2. In view of the leave note filed by the learned

Advocate for the applicant, S.O. to 23.01.2018.




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


Smt. Surekha Mahajan, learned Advocate

holding for Shri Sandip Rathod, learned Advocate

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



affidavit in reply on behalf of respondents. Time

granted.

3. S.O. to 24.01.2018.




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


Shri Anant Devkate, learned Advocate for

the applicant (Absent). Shri S.K. Shirse, learned

Presenting Officer for respondents, present.



granted.

3. S.O. to 24.01.2018.




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


Shri C.T. Jadhav, learned Advocate for the

applicant (Absent). Shri N.U. Yadav, learned


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

29.01.2018.




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


Shri V.M. Maney, learned Advocate for the

applicant (Absent). Shri S.K. Shirse, learned




granted.

3. S.O. to 25.01.2018.




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


Shri V.G. Pingle, learned Advocate holding

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

applicant and Shri I.S. Thorat, learned

Presenting Officer for respondent No. 1. Shri

Sachin Deshmukh, learned Advocate for

respondent No. 2, absent.


affidavit in reply on behalf of respondent No. 1.

Time granted.

3. S.O. to 17.01.2018.




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


Shri J.S. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for

the applicant and Shri D.R. Patil, learned

Presenting Officer for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

2. None appeared for the respondent No. 4,

though he is duly served.






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


Shri S.G. Kulkarni, learned Advocate

holding for Shri A.S. Dhongde, learned Advocate

for the applicant and Smt. Resha S. Deshmukh,




granted.

3. S.O. to 22.01.2018.




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


Shri V.S. Borkar, learned Advocate for the

applicant and Shri S.K. Shirse, learned




granted.

3. S.O. to 29.01.2018.



AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABADM.A. No. 65/2017 in O.A. St. No. 217/2017

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


Shri S.G. Kulkarni, learned Advocate

holding for Smt. S.A. Dhongde, learned Advocate

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




Same is taken on record and the copy thereof has

been served on the learned Advocate for the

applicant.

3. S.O. to 22.01.2018.




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


Shri S.G. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the

applicant and Smt. Resha S. Deshmukh, learned



affidavit in reply on behalf of respondents in M.A.

Time granted as a last chance.

3. S.O. to 04.01.2018.




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


Shri A.S. Shelke, learned Advocate for the

applicant (Absent). Shri N.U. Yadav, learned




granted as a last chance.

3. S.O. to 25.01.2018.




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


Heard Shri J.S. Deshmukh, learned

Advocate for the applicant and Smt. Resha S.

Deshmukh, learned Presenting Officer for

respondents.

2. Learned Advocate for the applicant seeks

time to file application for condonation of delay.

Time granted.

3. S.O. to 02.02.2018.




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


Heard Shri S.D. Joshi, learned Advocate for

the applicant and Shri V.R. Bhumkar, learned


2. At the request of learned Presenting

Officer, S.O. to 21.12.2017.




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


Heard Shri S.D. Joshi, learned Advocate for

the applicant and Shri N.U. Yadav, learned


2. At the request and by consent of both the

parties, S.O. to 21.12.2017.




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



Advocate for the applicant, Shri D.R. Patil,

learned Presenting Officer for respondent Nos. 1

to 3 and Shri N.P. Dube, learned Advocate for

respondent No. 5. Shri Y.S. Dhoble, learned

Advocate for respondent No. 4, absent.



Same is taken on record and the copy thereof has

been served on the other side.






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


Heard Shri A.S. Deshmukh, learned

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


2. At the request of learned Presenting Officer

for the respondents, S.O. to 17.01.2018.




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



Advocate for the applicant and Smt. Deepali S.

Deshpande, learned Presenting Officer for

respondents.

2. Learned Advocate for the applicant has

submitted that the applicant wants to file

application for amendment in the O.A. and

therefore, he seeks time. Time granted.

3. S.O. to 29.01.2018 for filing application for

amendment.




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


Heard Shri A.S. Deshmukh, learnedAdvocate for the applicant and Smt. Priya R.Bharaswadkar, learned Presenting Officer forrespondents.

2. Issue notices to the respondents,returnable on 02-02-2018.

3. Tribunal may take the case for finaldisposal at this stage and separate notice for finaldisposal shall not be issued.

4. Applicant is authorized and directed toserve on respondents intimation/notice of date ofhearing duly authenticated by Registry, alongwith complete paper book of the case.Respondents are put to notice that the casewould be taken up for final disposal at the stageof admission hearing.

5. This intimation/notice is ordered underRule 11 of the Maharashtra AdministrativeTribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1988, and thequestions such as limitation and alternateremedy are kept open.

6. The service may be done by hand delivery,speed post, courier and acknowledgment beobtained and produced along with affidavit ofcompliance in the Registry before due date.Applicant is directed to file affidavit of complianceand notice.

7. S.O.to 02-02-2018.

8. Steno copy and Hamdast is allowed to bothparties.




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



the applicant and Shri M.S. Mahajan, learned

Chief Presenting Officer for respondents.

2. Learned Advocate for the applicant has filed

short affidavit. Same is taken on record and the

copy thereof has been served on the learned

C.P.O.

3. Learned Chief Presenting Officer has

submitted that on instructions from Dr.

Gowardhan M. Gaykawad, Civil Surgeon,

Aurangabad, who is present in the Court hall,

that the respondent No. 2 i.e. Shri Satish Pawar,

Director of Health Services, Mumbai has

instructed Dr. Gowardhan M. Gaykawad that the

impugned order issued by the respondent No. 5

relieving the applicant is the termination order.

He has submitted that by treating the said

impugned order as termination order of the

applicant, the matter may be decided.

4. The matter is heard at length and it is

closed for orders.


farad continuation sheet in the maharashtra … orde 20122017.p… · [ms. neha k. parve vs. state...

Documents