BHARATIYA GRAMIN PUNARRACHANA SANSTHA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR
LAWS(SC)-2002-8-31
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
August 23,2002
BHARATIYA GRAMIN PUNARRACHANA SANSTHA
Appellant
VERSUS
VIJAY KUMAR
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
CHAIRMAN PRESIDENT ROTARY CHARITABLE TRUST VS. NAGENDRA PRATAPSINGH [LAWS(BOM)-2003-6-8] [REFERRED TO]J H PODAR HIGH SCHOOL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2003-8-151] [REFERRED TO]
HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. PRESIDING OFFICER SCHOOL TRIBUBAL [LAWS(BOM)-2004-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
PEN SHIKSHAN MAHILA SAMITI VS. SHRADHA SHRIRAM THAKUE [LAWS(BOM)-2005-11-71] [REFERRED TO]
PRESIDENT VS. SUNITA BANSIDHAR PATOLE [LAWS(BOM)-2006-9-197] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(BOM)-2006-10-124] [REFERRED TO]
PRESIDENT MAHILA MANDAL VS. SUNITA BANSHIDHAR PATOLE [LAWS(BOM)-2006-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
AIR INDIA STAFF COLONY ASSOCIATION VS. MORESHWAR V PATIL [LAWS(BOM)-2007-6-165] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA DNYANDEO LAD VS. CHAIRMAN RAHMATPUR PANCHKRUSHI SHISMAN MANDAL [LAWS(BOM)-2008-1-23] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDAMBA EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. RAJENDRA BABURAO GOLHAR [LAWS(BOM)-2009-1-73] [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY PHUNDABI SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL SANCHALIT JANPIR VS. SUBHASH TUKARAM JADHAVAR [LAWS(BOM)-2009-8-193] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK ALIAS BALAJI BIRADAR VS. MAHESH SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL [LAWS(BOM)-2009-8-45] [REFERRED TO]
LIBERAL EDUCATION SOCIETY NAGPUR VS. VRUSHALI [LAWS(BOM)-2009-10-97] [REFERRED TO]
JANTA EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. PRAKASH BABARAO SHINGANE [LAWS(BOM)-2009-11-197] [REFERRED TO]
RAJLAXMI CHANDRAWAT VS. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION [LAWS(MPH)-2004-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
AMBIKA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA VS. HONEBLE PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(BOM)-2009-12-118] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRASHEKHAR DHANIRAM PATEL VS. NAVSHAKTI VIDYALAYA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-3-118] [REFERRED TO [ 9.1 ,22 ,48 ]]
RAMKRISHNA CHAUHAN VS. SETH D. M. HIGH SCHOOL [LAWS(BOM)-2013-3-41] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN MAHAVIR PRIMARY SCHOOL VS. LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(BOM)-2014-2-154] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMIN AZAD EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, SCHOOL TRIBUNAL, AMRAVATI [LAWS(BOM)-2014-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL RAFIQUE VS. YAVATMAL ISLAMIA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-2-180] [REFERRED TO]
BHADRAWATI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA VS. HASHIB PASHA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-8-170] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMIN AZAD EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, SCHOOL TRIBUNAL, AMRAVATI [LAWS(BOM)-2014-2-340] [REFERRED TO]
ANOOP GANPATRAO BOBDE VS. DNYANSAGAR BAHNUUDDESHIYA SHAIKSHANIK SANSTHA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-8-151] [REFERRED TO]
SNEH KOHLI VS. UNIVERSAL ENGLISH TRUST & ANR [LAWS(BOM)-2016-10-48] [REFERRED TO]
PRASARAK MANDAL SANCHALIT JANPIR VIDYALAYA VS. SUBHASH TUKARAM JADHAVAR [LAWS(BOM)-2009-8-250] [REFERRED]
AIR INDIA STAFF COLONY ASSOCIATION-1 VS. AIR INDIA MODERN SCHOOL [LAWS(BOM)-2007-6-266] [REFERRED]
PRAMOD RAJARAM PAWAR VS. HEAD MISTRESS, SARASWATI VIDYALAYA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-4-226] [REFERRED]
JUDGEMENT
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. -
(1.)Leave is granted.
(2.)This appeal is from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in Writ Petition No. 697 of 2001, dated April 11, 2001. By the impugned order the High Court upheld the order of the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No.222 of 1997 dated January 6, 2001 directing re-instatement of the first respondent in service with 75% back wages and consequential benefits.
(3.)On August 6, 2001, this Court issued notice limited to the question as to why the appointment of the respondent (respondent No.1) should not be confined to the period mentioned in the order of appointment dated June 22, 1996.
(2.)This appeal is from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in Writ Petition No. 697 of 2001, dated April 11, 2001. By the impugned order the High Court upheld the order of the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No.222 of 1997 dated January 6, 2001 directing re-instatement of the first respondent in service with 75% back wages and consequential benefits.
(3.)On August 6, 2001, this Court issued notice limited to the question as to why the appointment of the respondent (respondent No.1) should not be confined to the period mentioned in the order of appointment dated June 22, 1996.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.