Bombay High Court
Aniruddha S/O Mansaram Kore vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 28 March, 2023
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, M. W. Chandwani
1 WP-613-2017.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.613 of 2017
Aniruddha S/o Mansaram Kore
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order
and Registrar's orders.
Shri Amol Mardikar, Counsel for Petitioner.
Shri A.A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Shri I.N. Choudhari, Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 28, 2023.
By this Writ Petition, the petitioner prays that the services rendered by
him from 12-7-2001 till 31-12-2008 be taken into consideration for computation
of his retirement and pension benefits.
We have heard Shri Mardikar, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Shri Madiwale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent
Nos.1 to 3, and Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5.
We find that the petitioner came to be appointed on year to year basis from
27-6-1995. He acquired the training qualification in 2001 and based on that he
was issued an order of appointment on 12-7-2001 on probation for a period of
two years. Though the petitioner's appointment was approved in the year 2002,
the same to be withdrawn by the order dated 25-3-2003. The petitioner
therefore approached this Court in Writ Petition No.2083 of 2003. This Court in
Para 5 of the judgment delivered in the said Writ Petition observed as under :
"5. Hence, we direct the respondent nos.4 and 5 to take immediate
steps to invite applications for the post of Assistant Teacher under the
respondent no.4 school and the petitioner shall be given preference in the
selection process for the said post, keeping in mind his experience of six
years under the respondent no.4 School. The selection process will be
finalized by 31st December, 2008 and the appointment shall be made by
01.01.2009. The proposal for approval would be submitted to the
respondent no.3 within 15 days from the date of appointment and the
same shall be cleared by the respondent no.3 as expeditiously as possible
2 WP-613-2017.odt
and in any case within four weeks from its receipt. The petitioner shall
not claim any benefit for the period prior to 01.01.2009 against any of
the respondents and the Management shall not resort to any recoveries
against the petitioner for the past period."
Subsequently, the petitioner participated in the recruitment process and
he has been appointed as Assistant Teacher and his services have been approved
thereafter.
We find that in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner had
categorically given up his claim against the respondents for the period prior to
31-12-2008. The same has been expressly recorded in the order passed in Writ
Petition No.2083 of 2003. We therefore do not find that the petitioner's claim
for treating his earlier service from 12-7-2001 to hold him entitled for retirement
and pension benefits can be sustained.
For the aforesaid reasons, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
The Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
LANJEWAR
