THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND ANR MR. U. H. KEDAR vs SMT. SUDHA RAMESH SHELAR — WP/7091/2013

Case under M.r.t.u. & P.u.l.p. Act Section ---. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 30th April 2026.

CNR: HCBM010313962013

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

05th August 2013

Filing Number

WP/21369/2013

Filing Date

03-08-2013

Registration No

WP/7091/2013

Registration Date

05-08-2013

Judge

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR

Coram

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR

Bench Type

Single

Category

LABOUR MATTERS DB ( 19 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

30th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Acts & Sections

M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act Section ---

Petitioner(s)

THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND ANR MR. U. H. KEDAR

Respondent(s)

SMT. SUDHA RAMESH SHELAR

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR

05-08-2013

FOR PRODUCTION

23-04-2026

AT 3.00 P.M.

06-03-2026

AT 3.00 P.M.

06-02-2026

AT 3.00 P.M.

11-04-2019

FOR FINAL HEARING

Orders

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

Summary The Bombay High Court upheld the Industrial Court's decision finding the Municipal Corporation's compulsory retirement of employee Sudha Ramesh Shelar unconstitutional. The court ruled that the Corporation failed to demonstrate genuine public interest grounds for retiring her at age 55, particularly given her recent 2010 promotion based on satisfactory service records and her unblemished disciplinary history. While denying full back wages (which the employee failed to prove with sworn evidence), the court granted continuity of service and retiral benefits until normal superannuation at age 58. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Bombay High Court upheld the Industrial Court's decision finding the Municipal Corporation's compulsory retirement of employee Sudha Ramesh Shelar unconstitutional. The court ruled that the Corporation failed to demonstrate genuine public interest grounds for retiring her at age 55, particularly given her recent 2010 promotion based on satisfactory service records and her unblemished disciplinary history. While denying full back wages (which the employee failed to prove with sworn evidence), the court granted continuity of service and retiral benefits until normal superannuation at age 58. 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