Union Of India,Min.Of ... vs Ramesh Laxmanrao Kherde
2017 Latest Caselaw 2973 Bom

                                                                                                           wp.3200.00

                                                             1



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

WRIT PETITION NO.3200/2000

1) Union of India Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecommunication Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi.

2) The Chief General Manager Telecommunication Maharashtra Circle C.T.O. Complex, Mumbai.

3)        Telecom  District Manager 
          Buldana, at Khamgaon 
          Dist.Buldhana.                                                                       ..PETITIONERS

                                          v e r s u s


          Ramesh  s/o Laxmanrao Kherde

Aged about 56 years, occu:Retired Govt.Servant R/o at present Amravati. ...RESPONDENT

...........................................................................................................................

Dr. R.S. Sundaram, Advocate for the petitioner Respondent served.

............................................................................................................................

                                                     CORAM:    R.K.DESHPANDE &
                                                                    MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
                                                                                          . 
                                                     DATED :       8  June,   2017
                                                                     th

ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER R.K.DESHPANDE, J.)

For the purposes of fixation of pay, service rendered by the

wp.3200.00

respondent from 07.05.1962 to 13.06.1964 falling under the combatant

category was taken into consideration, excluding the period spent for training

from 15.06.1962 to 29.02.1963. This makes a difference of Rs. 04/- only. No

doubt, consequential increase in the other dues would be more.

2. The petition was filed in the year 2000 when the respondent

was aged about 56-years. It is coming up for hearing in 2017. Dr. Sundaram,

learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised several grounds of

challenge to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. However,

we do not find any reason to consider all such grounds as we feel that it is not

a fit case where we should exercise our discretion to decide the controversy,

on merits. All the questions of law arising in the present petition are kept

open to be agitated in appropriate case. The Writ Petition is dismissed.

3. Dr.Sundaram, learned counsel for the petitioners informs that

this Court had passed an order on 17th June, 2002 staying the operation of the

order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal which came to be

confirmed on 9th June, 2003. None appears for the respondent.

4. In view of dismissal of this writ petition, obviously the

petitioners will have to make calculations and disburse the payment to the

wp.3200.00

respondent accordingly, within a period of six moths from the date of receipt

of this order. No costs.

                        JUDGE                         JUDGE

sahare