Vilas Vishwnath Bavaskar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 13648 Bom

                                    1                966 wp-7836-18

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       WRIT PETITION NO. 7836 OF 2018

Vilas Vishwnath Bavaskar,
Age : 35 years, Occu. At present Nil,
R/o Hiwarkheda Road, Kannad,
Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad.                          ...Petitioner

                       Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra,

2. The Additional Divisional
   Commissioner, Division, Aurangabad.

3. Chief Executive Officer,
   Z.P. Jalna

4. Medical Officer,
   Public Health Centre, Wadigodri,
   Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.                             ...Respondents
                         .......
Mr. D.R.Irale Patil, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. P.G.Borade, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4
Mr. Vaibhav Deshmukh, Advocate holding for Mr. S.S.Tope,
Advocate for Respondent No. 3
                         .......


                        CORAM   :       MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

                        DATE    :       22-09-2021.



ORAL JUDGMENT :

01.            Heard.



02.            Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.                      With

the consent of the parties matter is heard finally at the

stage of the admission.

                                       2                     966 wp-7836-18



03.            Since        the    deceased    employee          who       has      been

dismissed        from      the    employment   under      the      provisions           of

Maharashtra            Zilla      Parishad     and       District            Services

(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 his sons are impugning

the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, thereby

dismissing their appeal preferred under Section 13 of the

Rules.

04. It appears that, the employee himself had

challenged the order of dismissal by preferring appeal No.

53/2006. By the order dated 25.09.2008 it was dismissed.

Inspite of being aware of such dismissal the petitioners

preferred a separate appeal on which the impugned order

has been passed dismissing their appeal by observing that

it was the employees' statutory right to prefer the appeal

and the petitioner being the son could not have preferred

any appeal.

05. True it is that in the impugned order there is

no reference to the dismissal of the appeal preferred by

the employee himself and that is not the main ground for

dismissal of the appeal.

                                       3                  966 wp-7836-18

06.            However,         the   fact   remains     that       the       appeal

preferred by the employee himself which is a statutory

appeal has been dismissed. The petitioner never sought to

prosecute the self-same appeal and never sought to get it

resorted and instead preferred a separate appeal.

07. In any case the order of dismissal of appeal

preferred by the employee has already reached finality.

Consequently, the petitioner's appeal even otherwise could

not have been decided independently on merits.

08. In view of such particular set of facts, the

Writ Petition is dismissed. The rule is discharged.

[MANGESH S. PATIL] JUDGE Dahibhate/-