Dismissed

Shri. Vasant M. Patil v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Irrigation Dept and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Feb 2015WP/2937/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application for condonation of delay before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The petitioners failed to explain a 25-year gap in filing for pay parity and pension benefits. The court found the delay gross and inordinate and refused to interfere.

What did the court decide?

Refusal to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction; writ petition summarily dismissed.

Shri. Vasant M. Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2015)

1/3

WP2937-9.2

PNP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.2937 OF 2014

¶7

Vasant M. Patil versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and another

¶9

...Petitioner.

¶10

..Respondents.

¶11

Ms. Vrushali Maindad i/b Mr. M.R. Desai for the Petitioner. Mr. P.G. Sawant, AGP for the State.

¶12

….. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL &

¶13

A.S. GADKARI, JJ.

¶14

9^th February, 2015.

¶15

P.C.(Per A.S. Gadkari, J. :

¶16

The Petitioner by this Petition has challenged the order dated 2^nd July, 2013 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai in Miscellaneous Application No.267 of 2011 thereby dismissing his application for condonation of delay.

¶17

The Petitioner had preferred Original Application No.602 of 2013 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, thereby seeking parity in pay scale with that of the post of Agricultural Assistant of Agricultural Department. The Petitioner was working as Senior Survey Assistant in the Irrigation Department. In the Original Application apart from seeking benefits of parity, the Petitioner had also claimed for the benefits of the Fourth Pay Commission from 1^st January, 1986, Fifth Pay Commission from 1^st January, 1996 and Sixth Pay Commission

2/3

WP2937-9.2

PNP

from 1^st January, 2006. He also sought reliefs thereby seeking difference in pay as well as consequential benefits in pension. The Petitioner retired from service as Senior Survey Assistant on 30^th June, 2007. Original Application No.602 of 2013 was filed by the Petitioner on 22^nd June 2011 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai. The Petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of delay bearing Miscellaneous Application No.267 of 2011 thereby praying for condonation of delay of about 25 years caused in filing Original Application No.602 of 2013. The Tribunal has dismissed the said Miscellaneous Application No.267 of 2011 on the ground of gross delay.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned AGP. We have perused the record produced before us by the Petitioner. We have also perused the pleadings in Miscellaneous Application No.267 of 2011 and the pleadings in the present Petition. The Petitioner has utterly failed in explaining the gross and inordinate delay of 25 years in approaching the Tribunal. The facts on record clearly demonstrate that the Petitioner was totally lethargic in agitating his rights and in the circumstances, there is an inordinate delay of 25 years in approaching the Tribunal. As stated above, the said delay is not only inordinate and gross, but the Petitioner has clearly failed to explain the delay caused in the process. We are of the

3/3

WP2937-9.2

PNP

considered view that the Tribunal has rightly rejected Miscellaneous Application No.267 of 2011 and there is no error at all in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

¶27

For the reasons stated above, we refuse to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is accordingly summarily dismissed.

¶28

(Naresh H. Patil, J.)

¶29

(A.S. Gadkari, J.)

Shri. Vasant M. Patil v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Irrigation Dept and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Vasant M. Patil v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Irrigation Dept and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Samarth Arun Deshmukh and Ors. Vs the Commissioner, Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shri. Chandrakant Balu Palave and Ors. Vs the Grocery Market and Shops Board, Mumbai and Ors.

Dr. Rahul Sangram Sontode Vs Union of India through Secretary and Ors.

Willma Quintall Nelson Qunitall and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mrs. Devika Dayasagar Late and Ors. Vs Mira Bhayandar Mun. Corporation and Anr.

Mr. Popat Tukaram Patil Vs Mr. S. B. Sonawane and Ors.