Dattatraya Radhakrishna ... vs Divsional Controller M S R T C Beed & ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2346 Bom

                                              1




                                                                                
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                        
                             WRIT PETITION NO.4081 OF 2005
                                          WITH
                          CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7801 OF 2008




                                                       
    Dattatraya Radhakrishna Rakshasbhavankar,
    Age-45 years, Occu-Conductor,
                                                                    PETITIONER
    R/o Dhondipura, Tq. and Dist.Beed
    VERSUS 




                                             
    1. Divisional Controller,
        MSRTC, Beed,           
    2. Depot Manager,
        MSRTC, Dharur,
                              
        Tq.Dharur, Dist.Beed                                        RESPONDENTS 

Mr.B.R.Warma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.B.Dhongade, Advocate for the respondents.

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

DATE : 05/05/2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. This petition was Admitted on 14/12/2005. Interim relief was

not granted.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order delivered

by the Industrial Court dated 18/10/2004 by which Complaint (ULP)

No.113/2000 filed by the petitioner/employee has been dismissed.

khs/May 2016/4081-d

3. The petitioner was awarded the punishment of dismissal from

service for proved mis-conduct. His intra department appeal was

accepted only to the extent of giving him a fresh appointment. The

petitioner accepted the fresh appointment and joined duties. There

was no protest lodged by the petitioner, nor did he join duties as a

fresh employee by reserving his right to challenge the decision of the

respondent/Corporation.

4. Learned Advocate for the Corporation has defended the

impugned judgment.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates.

6. The dismissal of the petitioner is dated 11/02/1997. He was

given fresh appointment by order dated 15/05/1997. He has worked

with the Corporation after accepting fresh appointment and has

superannuated on reaching the age of retirement in December 2015.

7. This Court has dealt with an identical case in the matter of

MSRTC, Jalgaon Vs. Pandurang Trimbak Dusane, 2016(2) Mh.L.J.

228. It has been concluded by placing reliance upon the reported

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that once an employee

khs/May 2016/4081-d

accepts fresh appointment, he cannot thereafter challenge the said

appointment and pray for reinstatement with continuity of service

and full back wages. It was also concluded that the order of fresh

appointment presupposes that the order of dismissal is not interfered

with, is maintained and the employee is discontinued following which

a fresh appointment is given.

8.

In the light of the above, this petition is devoid of merit and is,

therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.

9. Notwithstanding the dismissal of this petition, considering that

the petitioner has superannuated, I find it appropriate to observe

that the respondents would release his retiral benefits including

gratuity, if not already paid, within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from

today, in the event, there is no other legal impediment.

10. Pending civil application, does not survive and hence is

disposed of.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

khs/May 2016/4081-d