Dismissed

Amulya Rambhau Patil v. the State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Agricultue and Marketing Dept. Mumbai and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Jul 2018CAO/1005/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench rejected a civil application seeking to condone a 55-day delay in filing for review. The court found no substance in the prayer for retrospective promotion, noting the petitioner failed to challenge prior promotion orders or demonstrate an assessee rights violation.

What the court decided

AI extract

Amulya Rambhau Patil Vs the State of Maha… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 cao1005.18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

C.A.O. NO.1005/2018 IN M.C.A. STAMP NO.10644/2018 (REVIEW) IN WRIT PETITION NO.799/2018 (D)

¶4

Amulya Rambhau Patil

¶5

..Vs..

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and another

¶7

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

- - - - Shri N.R. Saboo, Advocate with Shri H.D. Futane, Advocate for applicant / petitioner.

¶9

Ms. M.A. Barabde, A.G.P. for respondent No.1.

¶10

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND

¶11

SMT. SWAPNA JOSHI JJ.

¶12

DATED : 13.7.2018.

¶13

Prayer in civil application is to condone delay

¶14

of 55 days in filing miscellaneous civil application. Hence, before issuing notice, we wanted to prima facie

¶15

consider whether there is any substance in prayer for review.

¶16

Though Writ Petition No.799/2018 is third petition, in earlier two petitions filed after promotion of junior there was no challenge to that promotion. In Writ

¶17

2 cao1005.18

¶18

Petition No.5091/2014 simple direction sought was to consider representation of petitioner. Thereafter Writ Petition No.2127/2017 was filed with a grievance that representation is not decided and petitioner is not given promotion.

¶19

Promotion has been given thereafter in Scheduled Caste category. In Writ Petition No.799/2018 the prayer was to grant that promotion in physically handicapped category retrospectively i.e. three years from the date of appointment.

¶20

No such promotion given to any junior was ever questioned before this Court. Petitioner did not point out any promotion order issued to anybody after this Court disposed of Writ Petition No.5091/2014 on 18.12.2014.

¶21

It is, in this backdrop, that we have rejected Writ Petition No.799/2018 in motion hearing on 9th February, 2018. The Court then has observed that employer cannot be forced to fill any vacancy that too from a particular date. Had petitioner demonstrated some promotion, challenge to it etc., it would have brought on record violation of Article 14 and, therefore,

¶22

3 cao1005.18

¶23

enabled petitioner to claim a right.

¶24

In review again there is no effort to

¶25

demonstrate these factors.

¶26

We, therefore, find no substance in prayers.

¶27

Proceedings are, therefore, rejected.

¶28

JUDGE JUDGE

¶29

Tambaskar .

Amulya Rambhau Patil v. the State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Agricultue and Marketing Dept. Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Amulya Rambhau Patil v. the State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Agricultue and Marketing Dept. Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand S/O Narayanrao Jammu Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Mumbai and Others

All India Adiwasi Employees Federation, Nagpur Vs the Reserve Bank of India, through Its Regional Director, Nagpur and Others

State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Ministry Department of Cooperation, Mumbai and Another Vs Ahmadbhai Karimbhai Sheikh

The Chief Officer, Nagar Parishad, Narkhed Vs Smt. Mehfooza Afroz Ansari and Others

Subhash Manikrao Hutke Vs Krushak Education Society, Thr. Its. Secretray, Pradip N. Kale Wardha and Others

Gopal Ganesh Padhye Thr. P.O.A. Chetan P Rajkarne and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development Mantralaya Bombay and Others