Dr. Meena D/O Laxman Kapshikar vs Vice Chancellor, Rashtra Sant ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 17554 Bom

                                                                                                                                                 37wp1535.20.odt
                                                                                        1


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

                       WRIT PETITION NO. 1535/2020
        Meena Laxman Kapshikar...Versus... Vice Chancellor, RSTM Univesity,
                                Nagpur and ors
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,                                                                             Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------
                                            Mr. R.S.Sundaram, Advocate for petitioner
                                            Mr. S.Ashirgade, AGP for Respondent No.4

                                                                         CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 16/12/2021

Mr. Sundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the orders passed by the Respondent No.1 dated 18.3.2006 (p.112) and 21.2.2007 (p.113) were set aside by the University and College Tribunal by its judgment dated 3.2.2015 (page 90) and the respondents were directed to consider the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement and pass necessary orders. However, even before the appeal which was filed in the year 2006 could be decided, the application for voluntary retirement dated 23.6.2010 stood rejected on 27.10.2010 (p.83). The fact that the application for voluntary retirement stood rejected on 27.10.2010 was brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal by MCA No. 11/2017, which has been decided on 26.6.2019 by rejecting the application, however directing the respondents to consider the application for voluntary retirement within a month (p.29). The petitioner is now getting pension from 2.2.2006.

37wp1535.20.odt

Mr. Sundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that consequent to setting aside of the order dated 18.3.2006 and 21.7.2007, the effect was the reinstatement of the petitioner, as a result of which, the petitioner who had superannuated by that time ought to have been considered as such and Misc. Civil Application No. 11/2017, ought to have been allowed. Mr. Sundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon (1) A.K.Kalra vrs. Project and Equipment Corporation of India; (1984) 3 SCC 316 (para 32); (2) Vikramaditya Pande vrs. Industrial Tribunal and anr; (2001) 2 SCC 423 (placitum C); and (3) Gurpreet Singh vrs. State of Punjab and ors; (2002) 9 SCC 492.

Issue notice to the respondents, returnable in two weeks.

Petitioner to serve the respondents by Hamdast.

Learned AGP waives notice for Respondent No.4.

JUDGE rvjalit

Digitally sign byRAJESH VASANTRAO JALIT Location:

Signing Date:17.12.2021 10:41