Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.20 seconds)

Smt. Gokula Vilas Patil vs The Education Officer (Primary), Pay ... on 25 March, 2019

15. The provisions of the Government Resolution dated 04 th October, 1983 are self eloquent. It has been observed in the said Government Resolution that these teachers have rendered laudable service and during their tenure the educational institutions have prospered and the results of such institutions are also excellent. The Division in the case of Smt. Gokula Vilas Patil v. The Education officer (Primary) Sangli and others (supra) further observed that, cut off date provided does not have any rational and one could have considered, if the cut off date provided was the date Government Resolution or the subsequent date and in clear words observed that the Government Resolution does not have any nexus with the object. The Division Bench further observed that, by the 1983 Government Resolution, the State could not have gone backward by nine years to provide a cut of date.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - D S Naidu - Full Document

Umabai Ramkrishna Deshmukh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 4 July, 2019

5. Though Mr. Pulkundwar, learned counsel for respondents no. 3 and 4 resists, the situation appears to be squarely covered by decision of division bench of this court in the case of Smt. Umabai W/o Ramkrishna Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary reported in 2019 (5) ALL MR 193 has observed, thus, " 9. The Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services Rules provide that, provisions of the Pension Rule shall apply.
1