Bombay High Court
The Maharashtra State Other ... vs Nagesh Jagdishrao Deshpande And ... on 26 February, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
1 923-RA 259-2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 259 OF 2019
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6077 OF 2016
The Maharashtra State,
Other Backward Class Finance &
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director .. Applicant
Versus
Nagesh S/o Jagdishrao Deshpande
Since Deceased Through his Legal Heirs
and others .. Respondents
Mr. Amit A. Yadkikar, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. S. R. Yadav-Lonikar, AGP for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. V. D. Gunale, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1A to 1C.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATED : 26th February, 2021.
PER COURT:-
. Heard Mr. Yadkikar, learned counsel for the review applicant and
Mr. Gunale, learned counsel for the non applicant Nos. 1A to 1C.
2. The learned A.G.P. appears for respondent No. 2.
3. This Court under judgment and order dated 07.01.2019 allowed
the writ petition filed by the original writ petitioner and directed the
present review applicant to make payment of gratuity amount as
admissible within a period of three (03) months.
1 of 3
2 923-RA 259-2019.odt
4. While delivering the said judgment and order this Court
proceeded on the ground that at no material point of time the original
writ petitioner was terminated from service and on attaining age of
superannuation he retired from service and was relieved from the
service. Neither the learned counsel for the original writ petitioner, nor
the learned counsel for the present applicant during the course of
argument made submissions about the original writ petitioner being
terminated from service. The learned counsel for the review applicant
refers to prayer clause of the writ petition wherein the petitioner had
challenged the order terminating him from service.
[
5. It also appears from the judgment and the documents that
petitioner was relieved from the service on attaining age of
superannuation probably on the basis of the interim orders operating in
the petition. It appears that, subsequently at the time interim orders
were not operating in favour of the original writ petitioner the
respondents took a decision and terminated the services of the
petitioner after the petitioner was superseded from the service.
6. The termination order though was assailed by the original writ
petitioner, the same does not appear to have been dealt with in the
judgment under review. The legality of the termination order certainly
is a relevant factum while deciding the writ petition and precisely was
2 of 3
3 923-RA 259-2019.odt
challenged in the writ petition. As the learned counsel for the parties
did not dilate on the same, it was not dealt with in the judgment under
review.
7. Whether the respondents could have terminated the services of
the original writ petitioner after he attained age of superannuation and
with the retrospective effect certainly would be relevant and the future
benefits accorded to the petitioner would depend upon the finding on
the said issue.
[
8. As the same has not been dealt with in the judgment under
review, it would be appropriate to review the said judgment and restore
the writ petition to its original position.
9. In the light of that, the order dated 07.01.2019 in Writ Petition
No. 6077 of 2016 is reviewed and recalled. The Writ Petition No. 6077
of 2016 is restored to its original position.
10. The present respondent Nos. 1A to 1C may bring themselves on
record in the Writ Petition. Mr. Yadkikar, learned counsel appearing for
the review applicant appears for the respondents in the said petition.
( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI ) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
JUDGE JUDGE
P.S.B.
3 of 3
