Hiralal S/O Baliram Kolhe vs Swargiya Nirmala Adivasi ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 675 Bom

   wp2333.00                                                                     1



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH

                    WRIT PETITION  NO.  2333   OF  2000


  Hiralal s/o Baliram Kolhe,
  aged about 40 years,
  occupation - Nil, r/o 
  Ganesh Ward, Tq. Pandhurna,
  District - Chhindwara (M.P.).                 ...   PETITIONER

                    Versus

  1. Swargiya Nirmala Adivasi
     Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur,
     through its Secretary, r/o
     Dhanashree Complex, Near
     Tukdoji Putla, Raghuji Nagar,
     Nagpur.

  2. Dnyan Prasarak Post Basic
     Adiwasi Anudanit Ashram
     Shala, Bothali, Post - Thana,
     Tq. Umrer, Dist. Nagpur.

  3. Project Officer, Integrated
     Tribal Development Project,
     Giripeth, Nagpur 440 010.                  ...   RESPONDENTS


  Shri B.M. Lonare, AGP for respondent No. 3.
                    .....
                               CORAM :     B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                           MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

MARCH 10, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

None for the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

Shri Lonare, learned AGP appears for respondent No. 3.

2. With the assistance of learned AGP, we have

perused the records. The learned AGP has invited our attention

to the orders dated 02.08.2004 passed by this Court, order

dated 05.07.2005 and 05.04.2006 passed by the Additional

Registrar (Judicial) and In-charge Registrar (Judicial).

According to him, in view of the orders of this Court and

consequential exercise of quantification, the entire amount of

salary has already been recovered by the petitioner.

3. We find that on 30.08.2002 while passing orders on

Civil Application, this Court has taken note of the fact that the

services of the petitioner were not approved, therefore, its

earlier order dated 19.03.2001 directing respondent No. 3 to

pay the salary was recalled and the respondent - management

was called upon to clear that amount. Thereafter, the grievance

that the petitioner did not receive total amount and the sum of

Rs.44,593/- was still outstanding was traced on 04.02.2005.

Accordingly, on 05.07.2005, the Additional Registrar (Judicial)

has permitted execution of directions of this Court issued on

30.08.2002, to be undertaken through the Civil Judge, Senior

Division, Nagpur.

4. A perusal of later order dated 05.04.2006 passed by

the In-charge Registrar (Judicial) reveals that this direction to

execute, was maintained. There is no report as to whether the

order has been thereafter fully executed or not.

5. It is apparent that had there been no execution, the

petitioner would have immediately reiterated his grievance as

noted in the order dated 02.08.2004. We, therefore, find

substance in the contention of the learned AGP that as the

petitioner may have received full amount, the challenge is

rendered infructuous.

6. Accordingly, we dispose of the present writ petition

as infructuous. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.

           JUDGE                                                     JUDGE
                                            ******
  *GS.