The High Court at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad dismissed a writ petition challenging a Tribunal order that granted regularization benefits to a petitioner already retired. The Court held that deciding the maintainability or merits of the retrenchment challenge was academic given the petitioner's retirement.
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.
WP 3361.2000.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3361 OF 2002 WITH
CA/9769/2006 IN WP/3361/2002
GODAVARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DIVL.COPN. VERSUS THE STATE OF MAH. & ANR.
... Mr. P.R.Tandale advocate for petitioner AGP for Respondents: Mr. S.B.Pulkundwar
CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE & V.K. JADHAV, JJ. Dated: January 9, 2015.
PER COURT :-
2 WP 3361.2000.odt
Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad and on 28.02.2002, the learned Acting Chairman, without deciding as to whether the petition was maintainable before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal or whether the retrenchment notice was lawful, took a view that since the Government of Maharashtra has announced the decision vide Government Resolution dated 24.11.2000, the respondent was entitled to benefits under such Government Resolution. This decision is challenged before us.
3 WP 3361.2000.odt
4 WP 3361.2000.odt
service of five years prior to 1991. Had he been terminated in the year 2000 or so, he would have certainly taken advantage of the Government Resolution. The Government Resolution would have protected his job. The only difference in this case is that the respondent was terminated way back in 1991 and the decision of termination was not set aside by any competent Court of law. So, in view of the facts mentioned above, we do not find it necessary to go into such question. It is more or less an academic one. We therefore, dismiss the petition.
( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. )
aaa/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court should decide the question of maintainability of the petition before itself or the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
Whether the learned Acting Chairman erred in taking a simplistic view on the facts regarding the respondent's eligibility for regularization benefits.
GODAVARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DIVL.COPN.
THE STATE OF MAH.
ANR
A.V. NIRGUDE
V.K. JADHAV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
