Thakuba Ganpat Shelke vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 14289 Bom

Bombay High Court

Thakuba Ganpat Shelke vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 6 May, 2024

Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge

Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge

                                   -1-
                                                          wp4736.24.odt

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   41 WRIT PETITION NO. 4736 of 2024

     Thakuba Ganpat Shelke                             ....Petitioner

     versus

     The State of Maharashtra & others                 .....Respondents

     .....
     Mr. R. P. Bhumkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
     Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for the State.

                                CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
                                        R. M. JOSHI, JJ.

                                DATE     : 6th MAY, 2024.
PER COURT :

1. The Petitioner is before us for claiming a relief which

pertains to his promotion of 1985.

2. According to the Petitioner, he had tendered Applications

for seeking promotions, on 18.01.1985, 11.10.1987, 17.11.1987,

11.12.1987, 17.11.1989, 11.12.1989, 16.12.1991, 10.01.1992,

15.05.1993 and 22.07.1994. These representations have been filed

in between 35 to 39 years ago, are said to be pending. It is claimed

that the proposal for promotion was forwarded on 19.12.1989 to the

Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune. The Petitioner has

wp4736.24.odt

superannuated in 2001. (The Petitioner is not remembering the

exact date of his retirement).

3. It is settled that tendering a representation does not

infuse life into a dead cause of action. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has delivered a judgment on 08.04.2024 in Special Leave

Petition (Civil) No. 31248/2018 (Pathapati Subba Reddy (died),

through L.Rs. & others vs. The Special Deputy Collector (L.A.),

concluding that a right or the remedy must come to an end or cease

to exist if the claimant is sleeping over the rights. He has not agitated

for a long duration, rendering the delay inordinate and the conduct of

the claimant being negligent and being not diligent.

4. In the present case, the Petitioner was never promoted.

He requested for promotion by the first representation dated

18.01.1985. The last request for promotion is dated 22.07.1994. He

superannuated in 2001. In between 35 to 39 years ago, the

Petitioner prayed for promotion. Thereafter, the Petitioner went into

deep slumber. After 23 years, he desires that the issue as to whether

he was eligible for promotion, whether his juniors were promoted and

he was deprived of promotion and whether there can be a deemed

wp4736.24.odt

promotion and the benefits could be computed notionally, should be

considered..

5. We are afraid that entertaining such a Petition after 35

years is impermissible. A Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued.

6. This Petition is therefore dismissed.

( R. M. JOSHI)                              ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE)
    JUDGE                                           JUDGE

 dyb