Dismissed

Mr. Namdeo T. Gunjal v. the Union of India, through Secretary, Govt of India, Ministry of Communication Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Mar 2016WP/11136/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay accelerated a Writ Petition regarding a reappointment application barred by limitation. The court dismissed the petition, noting the petitioner had failed to challenge earlier retirement orders and proceeded on merits to quash the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

Mr. Namdeo T. Gunjal Vs the Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

skc

911-WP-11136-13.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 11136 OF 2013

¶7

Mr. Namdeo T. Gunjal versus The Union of India & Ors.

¶8

Petitioner

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

None for petitioner. None for respondents.

¶11

CORAM: D. H. WAGHELA, C. J. AND M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : 11 MARCH 2016

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1] None for the petitioner. However, upon perusing the impugned judgment and order as also the records, we are satisfied that this petition deserves to be dismissed on merits as well.

¶14

2] The petitioner was compulsorily retired on medical grounds on 25 June 2001. This order of compulsory retirement has not been challenged by the petitioner. Rather, the petitioner has received and continues to receive the retiral benefits, on the basis of the order dated 25 June 2001.

¶15

3] In 2004 or thereabouts, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment for his son. In this regard, the respondents addressed a letter dated 24 June 2004 to the petitioner, which inter alia required the forward of latest medical report of the retired official i.e. the petitioner from the Director of Health Services, in order to enable the

¶16

1 of 2

¶17

2 911-WP-11136-13.doc

¶18

skc

¶19

respondents to decide the case as to whether the petitioner's son could be given compassionate appointment. The Director of Health Services, it appears, upon examination of the petitioner, has reported that the petitioner is medically fit. This was some time in the year 2004 itself. Thereafter, it appears that, the petitioner made representations in the year 2004 and 2005. The petitioner then instituted original application no. 383 of 2008 in the year 2009 seeking for reappointment.

¶20

4] The petitioner, by making repeated representations, cannot obviously, seek to postpone the bar of limitation. Besides, the petitioner, having failed to challenge the order of compulsory retirement made on 25 June 2001, cannot, now seek for reappointment at such a belated stage.

¶21

5] Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the MAT was obviously right in holding that the original application no. 383 of 2008 instituted by the petitioner was barred by limitation and in any case lacked merit. We see no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order made by the MAT. This petition is therefore liable to be dismissed not just for non prosecution but also on merits.

¶22

6] This petition is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

CHIEF JUSTICE

(M.S.SONAK, J.)

chandka

2 of 2

Mr. Namdeo T. Gunjal v. the Union of India, through Secretary, Govt of India, Ministry of Communication Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Namdeo T. Gunjal v. the Union of India, through Secretary, Govt of India, Ministry of Communication Dept and Ors.

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

Mr. Jaiprakash Bansilal Raka and Anr. Vs Mrs. Santoshkumari Lakhpat Mehta

Dr. Kishori Vinayak Kodre Vs Dr. Vinayak Vasant Kodre

Parampujya Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagar Sra Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Seema Co-Operative Housing Soc., Ltd. through Its Secretary, Shri. Prakash Gawade and Ors.

Shri Sanjaykumar S. Zumbre, Irs Vs Union of India through Revenue Secretary and Anr.

Amit Tukaram Alhat Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Home Ministry and Ors.

Anil Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.