Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Akhil Maharashtra Sthanik Mathadi Ani General Kamgar Sanghatana, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking relief against the removal of certain employees. The court, on January 12, 2005, issued notice to the respondents, including the State of Maharashtra, to show cause why the petition should not be admitted. The court also granted interim protection, directing that the employees mentioned in Exhibit A not be removed except for disciplinary action, until the next hearing date of February 16, 2005. The Assistant Government Pleader waived service for respondent nos. 1 to 3. The matter was adjourned for further consideration.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Interim Relief - Status Quo Order - Notice to Show Cause - The High Court issued notice to respondents to show cause why the petition should not be admitted and directed that employees listed in Exhibit A not be removed except for disciplinary action, pending next hearing. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the employees mentioned in Exhibit A should be protected from removal pending admission of the writ petition.
Final Decision
Notice issued to respondents to show cause why petition be not admitted, returnable on 16.2.2005. Interim direction that employees mentioned in Exhibit A not be removed except for disciplinary action.
Law Points
- Interim relief
- status quo order
- notice to show cause
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (01) 14
Writ Petition No.10330 of 2004
Dalveer Bhandari, C.J., S.A. Bobde, J.
Mr. K.P. Anilkumar for petitioner, Mr. N.P. Deshpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos.1 to 3
Akhil Maharashtra Sthanik Mathadi Ani General Kamgar Sanghatana
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking protection from removal of employees.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought admission of the petition and interim protection against removal of employees listed in Exhibit A.
Filing Reason
To prevent removal of certain employees pending hearing.
Issues
Whether the employees mentioned in Exhibit A should be protected from removal pending admission of the writ petition.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued for interim protection; respondents waived service and did not oppose the interim order.
Ratio Decidendi
Pending admission, the court may grant interim protection to maintain status quo, especially when employees face removal.
Judgment Excerpts
Issue notice to the respondents to show cause as to why this Petition be not admitted, returnable on 16.2.2005.
We direct that until the next date of hearing, the employees mentioned in exh.`A' be not removed, except for disciplinary action.
Procedural History
The petition was filed on an unspecified date. On January 12, 2005, the court issued notice and granted interim relief. The matter was adjourned to February 16, 2005.
