Narayan Krushnaji Dhumal vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 1823 Bom

Bombay High Court

Narayan Krushnaji Dhumal vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 22 January, 2024

Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge

Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge

2024:BHC-AUG:1556-DB


                                                   *1*                       17wp14533o23


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            17 WRIT PETITION NO. 14533 OF 2023
                             NARAYAN KRUSHNAJI DHUMAL
                                          VERSUS
                     THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS
                                SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                                              ...
                Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr.V.G. Kodale i/by Mr. V.D.
                Gunale
                AGP for Respondent 1/State : Mr. S.K. Tambe
                Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3 : Mr. P.R. Tandale
                                              ...

                                      CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
                                                        &
                                              Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE :- 22nd January, 2024

Per Court :-

1. The Petitioner, by this petition filed after 15 years of

his retirement, seeks benefits for the temporary work performed

on the post of Extension Officer (Statistic), Class 3, Grade-II,

from 17.01.1986.

2. The petition filed after 15 years of retirement and

after 37 years of the cause of action, cannot be entertained.

3. The learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad points

out the judgment delivered by this Court dated 19.03.2004 in

Writ Petition No.2502/1996 (Siddique Mohammed Kaisar and *2* 17wp14533o23

others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) to indicate that

the remedy available is the Divisional Commissioner.

4. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that

he would approach the Divisional Commissioner.

5. The learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad submits

that after 37-38 years, the records may not be available and it

would be a futile exercise to reopen an issue which is 37 years

old.

6. Since the Petitioner contends that he would move an

application to the Divisional Commissioner, this Writ Petition is

disposed off.

7. We make it clear that we have not expressed any

view as regards the claim of the Petitioner and all contentions of

all the parties are kept open, on delay, laches and the limitation

period, if any.

kps (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)