Friday, 01, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Govind Kesumal Ramchandani vs Govt Of Mah & Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 1928 Bom

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 1928 Bom
Judgement Date : 27 April, 2016

Bombay High Court
Govind Kesumal Ramchandani vs Govt Of Mah & Others on 27 April, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
    Judgment                                                                     wp642.05

                                           1




                                                                            
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                    
                            WRIT PETITION No. 642  OF  2005.




                                                   
          Govind son of Kesumal Ramchandani,
          aged about 67 years, occupation - ex-employee
          of State Government of Maharashtra,




                                        
          resident of plot no.419, Jaripatka,
          Nagpur 440 014.        
                               ig                                ....PETITIONER.


                                        VERSUS
                             
      1. Government of Maharashtra,
         Department of Technical Education,
         through its Secretary, Mantralaya,
         Mumbai - 400032.
      


      2. The Director,
   



         Vocational Education and Training,
         Maha Nagar Palika Road, Mumbai - 02.

      3. The Deputy Director, 





         Vocational Education and Training,
         Regional Office, Link Road, Sadar,
         Nagpur 440 001.

      4. The Deputy Director,





         Vocational Education and Training,
         Regional Office, Morshi Road,
         Amravati - 404 602.                                     ....RESPONDENTS
                                                                                . 


                               ----------------------------------- 
                                   None for Petitioner.
                    Ms. Prabhu, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondents.
                               ------------------------------------




     ::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2016                   ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:59:55 :::
     Judgment                                                                              wp642.05

                                                   2




                                                                                     
                                                            
                                           CORAM :  B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
                                                        & P.N. DESHMUKH , JJ.

DATED : APRIL 27, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)

None for the petitioner. Ms. Prabhu, learned A.G.P. appearing on

behalf of the respondents, has invited our attention to the impugned order

passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and the earlier order

passed by the Government on 11.02.2003. Petitioner was in the

employment from 27.11.1965 till 23.06.1978. On that date he tendered his

resignation. He was informed that as certain government amount was to be

recovered from him, his resignation was not accepted. He then approached

the Court on 08.12.1979 and the said proceedings were dismissed on

20.12.1982. The stand of the Government was upheld by the Court.

Thereafter, he was informed time and again to clear the government dues.

Petitioner did not joined back and did nit pay the amount. He remained

absent.

2. Long after reaching the age of superannuation, he paid the

Judgment wp642.05

government dues on 19.01.2000 and then attempted to claim pension and

other retiremental benefits.

3. He did not join the duties for over a period of 20 years and in that

view of the matter, claim for pension has been declined observing that

because of long unauthorized absence, he lost his previous service also.

4.

The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has correctly

appreciated the position. We do not find any case made out warranting

interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is, dismissed. Rule

discharged. No costs.

                                 JUDGE                                 JUDGE


    Rgd.






 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter