Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 1928 Bom
Judgement Date : 27 April, 2016
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.
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!