The Chief Engineer vs Unknown
2009 Latest Caselaw 18 Bom

                                           1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:
                             NAGPUR BENCH: NAPGUR




                                                                              
                        WRIT PETITION NO.3359 OF 2001




                                                      
PETITIONER:
1]    The Chief Engineer, Ghossikhurd Project circle, Sinchan Bhavan Civil Lines,
      Nagpur.




                                                     
2]    The Superintending Engineer, Gossikhurd Project Circle, Sinchan Bhavan,
      Civil Lines, Nagpu.
3]    The Executive Engineer, Goseeikhurd Rehabilitation Divsiion, Plot No1.3,



                                              
      Civil Lines, Nagpur.      
4]    The Executive Engineer, Gossikhurd Dam Division, Wahi (Pauni), district
      Bhandara
                               
                                      VERSUS
1]    The Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur.
             

2]    Dhanraj Walgu Chakole, aged about 45 years, r/o Gore (Gossikhurd)
          



      District : Bhandara.
============================================================
Shri P.B.Patil, Advocate for petitioners





Shri D.C.Naukarkar, Advocate for respondent no.2
============================================================
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.

DATE: DECEMBER 07, 2009.

ORAL JUDGMENT.

By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the

Industrial Court, Nagpur on 19.4.2001, directing the petitioner to absorb the

respondent no.2 on the post which falls under skilled category w.e.f. 1.12.1985.

2] It appears that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has

absorbed the respondent no.2 on the post of Wireless Operator and has given him all

the benefits admissible to the said post w.e.f. 29.9.2003. Copy of the order dated

14.1.2005 absorbing the respondent no.2 on the post of Wireless Operator w.e.f.

29.9.2003 is annexed to the affidavit filed by the petitioner in this court.

3] By order dated 10.3.2005 it is made clear that the respondent no.2 would not

be entitled to any monetary benefits payable before 29.9.2003 as he is absorbed as

Wireless Operator since that date. Copy of an undertaking furnished by respondent

no.2 before the petitioner is also annexed to the affidavit. It is stated in the

undertaking that the petitioner would unconditionally withdraw the proceeding in

the court of law, if he is absorbed on the post of Wireless Operator in accordance

with government resolution dated 29.9.2003. The respondent no.2 has not

challenged the order dated 10.3.2005.

3] It is clear from the documents annexed to the affidavit that the claim of the

respondent no.2 is satisfied in pursuance of his absorption as wireless operator since

29.9.2003, the petition can be disposed of in view of the subsequent event.

4] In the result, writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.

JUDGE

SMP.