Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 1 of 1 (0.18 seconds)

P.A. Inamdar & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 12 August, 2005

5. The first and the foremost fact that is required to be noted is that it appears that there was no representation made by the Petitioners to Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 and especially Respondent No.5. Though in similarly situated Zilla Parishads, the G.R. might have been implemented that does not mean that the representation should not be made by the Petitioners. The Petitioners themselves have annexed copy of order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 13241 of 2024 (Dinesh Eknath Patil and 4 WP 10293.2025.odt 3 of 6 others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) passed on 04/12/2024, wherein it appears that present Respondent No.5 was Respondent No.6. This Court had then directed that Respondent- Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar shall scrutinize the records of those Petitioners and the places at which they were deployed for performing their duties and then decide regarding the implementation of the Government Resolution. In fact, present Respondent No.5 ought to have then scrutinized the record of all the employees under the Zilla Parishad School and ought to have taken a decision once for all for all the employees. Again it appears that bunch of employees filed Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 8788 of 2025, 8800 of 2025, 3977 of 2025 and 6856 fo 2025 which came to be decided by this Court on 21.07.2025. Therein also a present Respondent No.5-Chief Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar was party and similar directions have been given. We intend to issue similar directions in respect of the Petitioners also, however, before that the Petitioners should file a representation to Respondent No.5.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 737 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1