The petitioner sought a declaration treating a specific period as duty for benefits and cash compensation. The Court dismissed the petition as a gross abuse of legal process due to repeated filings on the same issue.
The petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/-.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp2085.13
1
KJ
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2085 OF 2013
Shankar Digambar Poul )....Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra )...Respondent
Mr.S.D.Poul petitioner in person. Ms.S.S.Bhende AGP for respondent no.1.
CORAM : V.M.KANADE & K.R.SHRIRAM,JJ
ORDER RESERVED ON : 24.6.2013. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 11.7.2013.
P.C. ( Per : K.R.Shriram,J) :-
1 The petitioner is a party in person. The petition is filed for issuing order directing the respondent to treat the period 1.9.1974 to 25.8.1976 as a period spent on duty in the cadre of Junior Engineer for all purposes including consequential benefits. The petitioner has also prayed that the respondent be directed to pay Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioner as a compensation for the period of 1994 till date. The petitioner has raised the same grievance from time to time by filing various Writ petitions which have been rejected by this Court. Admittedly, the petitioner has approached the Maharashtra
2 wp2085.13
Administrative Tribunal, this Court (25 petitions) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (3 petitions). The petitioner has preferred this Writ petition undaunted by failure to find favour with the same kind of argument again and again and has tried to justify. In our opinion, it is a gross abuse of the legal process. In view thereof we do not wish to go into the merits again. Mere repeated representations does not give fresh cause of action to the petitioner. Not only that Courts' valuable time was unnecessarily wasted by such repeated representations by the petitioner on the same issue, but the respondent-State also has to incur cost to defend such petitions filed by the petitioner. On earlier occasions the Courts have also saddled the petitioner with cost.
2 In the result, petition is hereby dismissed with cost which is fixed at Rs.5000/-.
(K.R.SHRIRAM,J) (V.M.KANADE,J)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition filed for directing recognition of a service period and claiming compensation, which has been repeatedly rejected by this Court and higher authorities, deserves to be enterta
Shankar Digambar Poul
The State of Maharashtra
V.M.Kanade
K.R.Shriram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
