The State Of Maharashtra Mumbai & 4 ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Mumbai & 4 ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2661 Bom

 Judgment                                          1                                wp1575.02.odt




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                 

                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                           WRIT PETITION NO. 1575 OF 2002


 1. The State of Maharashtra, 
    through its Sectretary, Health
    Services Department, Mantralaya,
    Mumbai-32.

 2. Director of Health Services,
    St. John Hospital Campus,
    Near C.S.T., Mumbai. 

 3. The Deputy Director of Health
    Services, Akola.  

 4. Dean,
    Government Medical College, 
    Nagpur. 

 5. District Health Officer,
    Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal. 
                                                                      .... PETITIONERS.

                                    //  VERSUS //


 Dr. Shri Suresh Mahadeorao Khodwe,
 aged about 49 years, Occ : Medical Officer, 
 Primary Health Centre, Akola-Bazar, 
 Distt. Yavatmal. 
                                                                      .... RESPONDENT.


  ___________________________________________________________________
 Ms Shamsi Haider, A.G.P. for Petitioner. 
    
 ___________________________________________________________________

                      CORAM   :  B. P. DHARMADHIKARI AND Z.A.HAQ, JJ.
                      DATED    :  MAY 29, 2017.


 JUDGMENT  (PER : B.P.Dharmadhikari, J): 

Judgment 2 wp1575.02.odt

1. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for the

petitioners. Nobody appears for the respondent.

2. The petitioner was 49 years old in 1999 when he

approached Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 616 of

1999. It is obvious that he has already superannuated by now.

3. This Court has not granted any interim relief and only Rule

has been issued in this matter on 6 th August, 2002. It is, therefore,

obvious that directions issued by the Maharashtra Administrative

Tribunal have been already implemented.

4. The fact shows that the amount of Rs.1,44,105/- was

sought to be recovered from him as he left post graduation course in

the middle without completing it. It appears that he was selected as

departmental candidate for post graduation course in the year 1996

and he joined that course in June,1996. The Maharashtra

Administrative Tribunal has recorded the undisputed fact in paragraph

5 of its judgment. As per that paragraph he was attending his post

graduation course regularly and punctually till 05/10/1997. On that

Judgment 3 wp1575.02.odt

date he made a representation to higher authorities seeking leave to

discontinue the post graduation course because of his personal and

family difficulties. No decision upon it was taken by the department

prior to October, 1999. He was also not given any posting. He,

therefore, had filed Original Application No. 378 of 1998 before

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and on 14/12/1998 the

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal passed interim order and directed

the respondents therein to give him posting within a period of fifteen

days, in default it was to be deemed that he was on his original post.

Inspite of these interim directions of Maharashtra Administrative

Tribunal no orders were passed and consequently the applicant

(present respondent) joined his duties. The Maharashtra

Administrative Tribunal has, in this background in its order dated 4 th

September, 2001, partly allowed the application moved before it by the

respondent. The Recovery of Rs.1,44,105/- was directed to be

withdrawn and the respondent/ employer was directed to issue orders

to treat the period of absence between 05/10/1997 and 23/01/1999

as a period spent on duty for all purposes including continuity,

pension, notionally.Thus, wages for the period of absence were denied.

It is this order which has been questioned in the present matter.

Judgment 4 wp1575.02.odt

5. Considering the fact that the petitioner has already reached

the age of superannuation some time in 2008, in the present situation,

we are not inclined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction. The

respondent-employee had pointed out his difficulties and made a

representation in advance. No decision was taken upon it and

therefore, he was required to approach Maharashtra Administrative

Tribunal again to seek order of posting, accordingly, he joined back the

employment.

6. This Court has not granted any interim relief and as such

after completing normal service he has superannuated. He must have

received all his terminal benefits also thereafter. Hence, without

creating any precedence and leaving all the legal issues open, we

decline to intervene in the matter.

The writ petition is, therefore, rejected. Rule stands

discharged. No costs.

                              (Z.A.HAQ, J.)                           (B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

RRaut..