SMT. SUDHA RAMESH SHELAR vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI, THROUGH MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER — WP/2540/2014

Case under Bombay Municipal Corporation Act Section ---. Disposed: --Partly Allowed on 30th April 2026.

CNR: HCBM010037642014

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

16th April 2014

Filing Number

WP/2556/2014

Filing Date

29-01-2014

Registration No

WP/2540/2014

Registration Date

06-03-2014

Judge

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR

Coram

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR

Bench Type

Single

Category

MAT ( 35 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

30th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

--Partly Allowed

Acts & Sections

Bombay Municipal Corporation Act Section ---

Petitioner(s)

SMT. SUDHA RAMESH SHELAR

Adv. Prakash Devdas

Respondent(s)

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI, THROUGH MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR

16-04-2014

FOR ORDERS

23-04-2026

AT 3.00 P.M.

06-03-2026

AT 3.00 P.M.

06-02-2026

AT 3.00 P.M.

02-05-2019

FOR FINAL HEARING

Orders

30-04-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR

Case Summary: WP/2540/2014 - Smt. Sudha Ramesh Shelar v. MCGM The High Court of Bombay upheld an employee's unfair labour practice complaint against her compulsory retirement at age 55. The court found the Municipal Corporation's decision violated its own service guidelines and lacked objective basis, noting her recent 2010 promotion demonstrated fitness, her service record showed "Excellent" to "Good" grades, and adverse memos alone cannot justify forced retirement. She is reinstated until normal superannuation at age 58 with service continuity and consequential benefits, excluding back wages. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/2540/2014 - Smt. Sudha Ramesh Shelar v. MCGM The High Court of Bombay upheld an employee's unfair labour practice complaint against her compulsory retirement at age 55. The court found the Municipal Corporation's decision violated its own service guidelines and lacked objective basis, noting her recent 2010 promotion demonstrated fitness, her service record showed "Excellent" to "Good" grades, and adverse memos alone cannot justify forced retirement. She is reinstated until normal superannuation at age 58 with service continuity and consequential benefits, excluding back wages. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case