Petitioner sought continuity of service for a specific period. The court held that resignation was not accepted in conformity with pension rules. The petition was dismissed due to lack of merits and excessive delay.
Petition dismissed as there were no merits due to non-compliant resignation and excessive delay.
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.
42 sr.no..odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8958 OF 2019
RAM NARAYANDASJI MAHASAHEB
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. K.V. Patil
AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. S.G. Karlekar
Advocate for Respondent No. 4 : Mr. G.K. Chinchole h/f. Mr. S.M. Vibhute
CORAM : A.S. GADKARI & S.G. MEHARE, JJ.
DATE : 14TH FEBRUARY, 2022.
P. C. :-
1]By the present petition, petitioner is seeking continuity in
service of respondent No.4 from 29.2.1982 to 30.6.1983.
2]Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned AGP.
Perused record annexed to the petition and affidavit-in-reply filed by Mr.
Mahesh Shivankar, Joint Director, Technical Education, Regional Office,
Aurangabad on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
3]Record clearly indicates that, the petitioner resigned from
the post of Lecturer in Maharashtra Polytechnic D-Pharmacy Institute,
Nilanga, Dist. Latur, vide his application dated 2.7.1983. The resignation
was not approved/accepted by the concerned Authority and in fact it was
not as contemplated under Rule 46(3) of the M.C.S. (Pension) Rules,
42 sr.no..odt
{2}
1982. As the resignation tendered by the petitioner from the post of
`Lecturer’ was not in conformity with the said Rule, he cannot be
permitted to claim continuity in service for the said period.
4] There is another facet to the present petition. For the cause of action which arose on 30.6.1983, the petitioner has filed present petition in March, 2019 which is clearly hit by delay and laches. No fault of whatsoever nature, can be found with the respondents in that behalf.5] In view thereof, we find no merits in the petition. Petition isaccordingly dismissed.
[S.G. MEHARE] [A.S. GADKARI]
JUDGEJUDGE.
[A.S. GADKARI]
grt/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can claim continuity of service when his resignation was not accepted under Rule 46(3) of the M.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1982
Whether the petition is barred by delay and laches given the cause of action arose in 1983 and the petition was filed in 2019
Whether the present writ petition has any merit considering the non-conformity of resignation and the delay
1 provisions across 1 enactments
RAM NARAYANDASJI MAHASAHEB
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
OTHERS
A.S. GADKARI
S.G. MEHARE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court