Gajanan Mahadeo Nage Buldhana vs The State Of Mah. Mumbai & Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 5885 Bom

                                      1                   WP1831-02.odt         



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



                       Writ Petition No.1831 of 2002
                                     ...



Gajanan s/o Mahadeo Nage,
Aged about 35 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
R/o Chitoda, Tahsil Khamgaon,
District Buldana.          ..                                PETITIONER


                               .. Versus ..

1. The State of Maharashtra,
   through Secretary to the
   Government of Maharashtra
   in the Department of Revenue,
   Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.

2. The Sub Divisional Magistrate,
   Khamgaon, Tahsil Khamgaon,
   District Buldana.

3. Sheikh Rahim s/o Sheikh Gafoor,
   aged about 33 years,
   Occupation: Agriculturist,
   Resident of Chitoda,
   Tahsil Khamgaon,
   District Buldana.                          ..          RESPONDENTS


Mrs. R.S. Sirpurkar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. S.A.     Ashirgade, Additional Government Pleader for
Respondent No.1.

                               ....




::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2017                   ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:10:44 :::
                                     2                      WP1831-02.odt         


              CORAM : R.K. Deshpande & Manish Pitale, JJ.

DATED : August 11, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (per R.K. Deshpande, J. )

1. By the impugned judgment and order dated

07.02.2002 passed in Original Application No.622 of 1999 the

appointment of the petitioner on the post of Police Patil made

on 5.11.1999 was cancelled. Pursuant to this decision, the

order dated 27.03.2002 was issued by respondent no.2

terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from

31.03.2002. This Court passed an order of status quo on

21.06.2002, as a result of which according to the petitioner he

continued in the employment from the date of initial

appointment on 05.11.1999 till the expiry of 5 years' tenure in

the year 2004.

2. In fact the controversy in the present petition no

longer survives for the reason that it was a tenure

appointment for a period of 5 years which had come to an end.

The petition, therefore, to that extent becomes infructuous.

3. On the aspect of payment of honorarium for the

period from 27.03.2002, there is no averment in the writ

3 WP1831-02.odt

petition that the petitioner was not paid with the honorarium

though he actually worked on the post. In the absence of any

material on record to prove that the petitioner has actually

performed the duties for the said period, the question of

payment of arrears of honorarium does not arise.

4. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. Rule is

discharged.

(Manish Pitale, J. ) (R.K. Deshpande, J.) ...

halwai/p.s.