Dismissed

Subhash Laxmanrao Padibhar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC15 Nov 2016WP/6200/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the MA Tribunal's order dismissal of an original application seeking continuation of the petitioner's appointment as Special Assistant Public Prosecutor. The court held the appointment was temporary and outside Section 25 CrPC. No continuation right exists beyond age 58.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stood dismissed without any interim or final relief granted.

Subhash Laxmanrao Padibhar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp620016.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6200 OF 2016

¶4

Subhash s/o Laxmanrao Padibhar

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & another

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Mr.G.T.Patil, advocate holding for Mr.R.V.Gore, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.B.Joshi, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : R.M.BORDE &

¶11

SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 15th November, 2016

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

1 The petitioner is objecting to the order dated 23.03.2016, passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dismissing Original Application No.98 of 2016.

¶14

2 The petitioner was appointed as a Special Assistant Public Prosecutor by virtue of the order issued by the Collector on 16.05.2000. The post had fallen vacant on account of resignation tendered by one Mr.Laxman Wakade on 02.05.2000. On perusal of the appointment order, it transpires that the appointment is for temporary duration and not a regular one within contemplation of Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶15

3 The petitioner has been appointed as Assistant Special Public Prosecutor under Section 25(3) of the Code of Criminal Prosecutor. The category of Special Assistant Public Prosecutor is

¶16

wp620016.odt

¶17

not within contemplation of Section 25 of the Code of 1973. Apart from this aspect, sub-section (3) of Section 25 provides that where no Assistant Public Prosecutor is available for the purposes of any particular case, the District Magistrate may appoint any other person to be the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of that case. The petitioner has not been appointed for conducting any particular case. The petitioner does not have any legal right to claim continuation beyond the age of 58 years. The decision taken by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal appears to be legal and correct and does not call for interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition is devoid of substance.

¶18

4 Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶19

SANGITRAO S. PATIL R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE

¶20

adb/wp620016

Subhash Laxmanrao Padibhar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Laxmanrao Padibhar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Bansi Tele Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sakharam Bhivaji Athavale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Tejas Superstructures Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director S S Nimbalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others