Smt. Alka Balkrishna Shirke vs Administrative Medical Officer ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4397 Bom

                                                                                 8. civil wp 5594-17.doc


RMA      
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 5594 OF 2017


            Alka Balkrishna Shirke                                        .. Petitioner

                                  Versus
            Administrative Medical Officer & Anr.                         .. Respondents

                                                   ...................
            Appearances
            Mrs. Shubhada S. Gokhale Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mr. Vishal Thadani       AGP for the State
                                                   ...................



                              CORAM        : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                               SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE : JULY 12, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

1. Heard both sides.

2. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule is made

returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally.

3. This petition is preferred against the order of the

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench dated

12.3.1999.

            jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                    1 of 3





                                                                  8. civil wp 5594-17.doc

4. The petitioner had made various representations for

being given an appropriate pay scale according to IVth Pay

Commission claiming that she had been appointed as steno-

typist. These representations were rejected, hence, she

approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. By

order dated 12.3.1999, the Original Application filed by the

petitioner came to be dismissed.

5. It is seen that no explanation is given for the delay

except stating that she was facing matrimonial dispute which

litigations was fought from 1996 to the year 2000 which

disturbed her life. She had taken a loan of Rs. 3.05 lacs,

hence, she was not in a mental state to challenge the order

of the Tribunal dated 12.3.1999. However, it is seen that the

matrimonial dispute came to an end in 2000 and this petition

has been filed in 2017, hence, we do not find this a good

ground to explain the delay. Even a loan of Rs. 3.05 Lacs is

not sufficient ground to explain the delay. Moreover, no

details are given i.e when the loan was obtained and when it

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3

8. civil wp 5594-17.doc

was paid off etc.. Even otherwise, it is not a good ground

because the petitioner could have sought legal aid if she did

not have the financial capacity to engage an Advocate.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner from time to time was pursuing her matter with

the department, however, the papers show that though the

last representation was rejected on 11.2.2016, this petition

has been filed on 7.3.2017. There is no explanation at all for

the delay from 11.2.2016 to 7.3.2017.

7. Looking to the inordinate delay and latches on the part

of the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere. Hence, the

petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

[ SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J. ]             [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                       3 of 3