Meghnath Satuji Ramteke vs The Union Of India And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 9785 Bom

                                                             03 WP 3018 OF 2015.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           3 WRIT PETITION NO.3018 OF 2015

                           MEGHNATH SATUJI RAMTEKE
                                       VERSUS
                       THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
                                         ...
                                Petitioner in person.
                  ASGI for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. S.W. Munde

                              CORAM           : MANGESH S. PATIL &
                                                SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.

                              DATE            : 26.09.2022.


PER COURT :           ( PER : SANDEEP V. MARNE J.)

         We have heard both the sides.

2. Petitioner has filed present petition challenging the order dated 13.08.2012 passed by the office of Superintendent of RMS 'L' Division, Bhusawal. The said order is passed in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 23.12.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 436/2009. By that judgment, the Tribunal issued following directions :

"10. However, since no opportunity was given to the respondents to address themselves over this issue, we are of the view that it is for the applicant to make a proper representation in regard to the interest he claims giving full particulars of the payments received and the extent of delay involved and on receipt of the same, the respondents shall, keeping in view the decision in the above mentioned OA, and decide the same"

Towards implementation of the said order issued by the Tribunal, the respondents have passed order dated 13.08.2012. The petitioner is not

03 WP 3018 OF 2015.odt satisfied with the order dated 13.08.2012 and has accordingly filed the present petition. We are of the view that the petitioner will have to approach the Tribunal once again challenging the order dated 13.08.2012 by filing appropriate proceedings.

3. Accordingly, we dispose of the present petition granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 13.08.2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing appropriate proceedings.

4. Time spent in prosecuting the present petition would be considered by the Tribunal while deciding the issue of limitation.

5. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)

mkd/-