The petitioner sought salary and service continuation from 1986. The High Court dismissed the writ petition as time-barred, refusing to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction due to over 30 years of delay without explanation.
Petition dismissed; application for extraordinary jurisdiction declined.
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.
1 18-wp3648-16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3648 OF 2016
PRABHAWATI BABURAO PAWAR VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Mr.T.M.Venjane, advocate for petitioner
Mr.V.S.Badakh, AGP for respondent no.1
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 31, 2016
PER COURT :
Heard.
2]The petitioner, by way of filing this Writ
Petition, seeks direction to the respondents to
pay salary to him for the period from July, 1986
to December, 1987 and also for continuation in the
service.
3]It appears that the petitioner was appointed
way back in the year 1985 and thereafter,
2 18-wp3648-16.odt
confirmed in the service in the year 1988.
Admittedly, the petitioner has filed a
representation on 23rd December, 2012 i.e. after a
lapse of more than 27 years after his appointment.
4]In that view of the matter, not only the
representation filed by the petitioner is
hopelessly time barred, but also this petition
which is filed almost after more than 30 years.
No such stale claim can be considered by invoking
extraordinary jurisdiction otherwise, it will set
a wrong precedent and may open a flood gate for
filing such stale claims.
5]For the reasons afore-stated and the fact that
even the delay in filing the present petition has
not been explained, we decline to invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction.
3 18-wp3648-16.odt
6]The petition is devoid of merits and stands
dismissed.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.][S.S. SHINDE, J.]
kbp
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a claim for salary and continuation in service filed after more than 30 years should be entertained.
Whether the High Court should invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction given the inordinate delay and lack of explanation.
Whether a petition is maintainable when the underlying representation is time-barred.
Prabhawati Baburao Pawar
The State of Maharashtra
S. S. Shinde
Sangitrao S. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court