Writ petition challenging the Tribunal's decision refusing a deemed date of appointment. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's ruling that denial of old pension scheme due to administrative delay does not entitle the petitioner to a deemed appointment date.
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 )
wp3760.18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3760 OF 2018
TANHAJI DIGAMBAR KUBADE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Mr.S.D.Dhongade Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.P.Sonpawale, AGP for respondent/State.
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA &
S.M.GAVHANE, JJ.
DATED :21.08.2018
P.C. :-
1.Mr.Dhongde, learned advocate for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner was selected for the post of
Peon in August, 2004. The petitioner was interviewed on
18.08.2004 and he was appointed. He was directed to
submit Validity Certificate and in September, 2004, the
Validity Certificate of his caste was submitted. Learned
Counsel submits that though there was no delay on the
part of the petitioner, the appointment order came to be
issued in 2009. It is not the fault of the petitioner.
The petitioner is deprived of old pension scheme because
of negligence and fault on the part of the respondents.
The petitioner is entitled for deemed date of appointment
from the year 2004.
2.Learned AGP supports the order passed by the
Tribunal.
3.No concept of deemed date of appointment has
been pointed out to us. The petitioner has been issued
with appointment order for the post of Peon on 13th
November, 2009. The Tribunal observed that no
declaration can be granted in law that any earlier date
shall be deemed date of appointment. Nothing is brought
before us to suggest that the petitioner can be given
deemed date of appointment prior to the date of
appointment order and the petitioner’s joining service.
In absence thereof, the judgment of the Tribunal cannot
be faulted with.
4.The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.]
snk/2018/AUG18/ wp3760.18
Tanhaji Digambar Kubade
The State of Maharashtra
S.V. Gangapurwala
S.M. Gavhane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court