Aimpering appeal against a Tribunal order rejecting claims for absorption/pension. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's dismissal, noting the petitioner's part-time service ended in 2002 and lacked documentary proof of continued service.
Petition rejected; no recovery or benefit granted.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
(1) WP NO.3643 of 2015
8 WRIT PETITION NO. 3643 OF 2015
KAZI MANSUR AHEMAD MASUD AHEMAD VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioner :Mr.V.G.Sakolkar h/f Mr. Murge Estling S AGP for Respondent State: Mr. A.V.Deshmukh
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & P.R. BORA, JJ. Dated: February 08, 2016
PER COURT :-
agp/(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
(2) WP NO.3643 of 2015
respondents to consider the representation tendered by the petitioner on its own merits, and even then, mechanically said representation has been decided. Therefore, he submits that the petition deserves favourable consideration.
agp/(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
(3) WP NO.3643 of 2015
the case in paragraph No.1 of the impugned judgment has observed that the Tehsildar, Osmanabad, vide order dated 26th September, 1998, posted the petitioner in the Office of the Dy.R.T.O., Osmanabad, as a Clerk / Part time worker, however, the petitioner was continued as a Part Time worker till 30th October, 2002. It further appears that on 3rd February, 2005, the petitioner herein made representation to the R.T.O., Osmanabad, however, there is no record which would un-disputedly indicate that the petitioner did render services, though as a Part Time worker till the filing of this petition.
In that view of the matter, since petitioner was appointed as a Part Time worker till 30th October, 2002, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, after adverting to settled principles of law, stated in various pronouncements of the Supreme Court, has taken a correct view. We do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and order.
Hence, the petition stands rejected.
agp/(1)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's claim for absorption/pension?
Whether the petitioner can claim benefits after his part-time employment was terminated in 2002?
Kazi Mansur Ahemad Masud Ahemad
State of Maharashtra
Other Authorities
S.S. Shinde
P.R. Bora
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
