Bombay High CourtWP/5960/2013rule discharged

Mr. Makhdoom Bandagisab Shaikh v. The State Of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Revenue Dept And ORS

2017-07-31Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sandeep Kashinath Shinde,Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.K. Tahilramani3 pages

* 1/3 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5960 OF 2013 Mr. Makhdoom Bandagisab Shaikh ......Petitioner V/s.

The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Revenue Dept. and Ors.

.......Respondent Mr. N.V.Bandiwadekar i/by Mr. Sachin Chandan , Advocates for Petitioner.

Mr. N.C.Walimbe, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3-State. CORAM :

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE :

July 31, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per Smt. V.K.Tahilramani, J.] ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per Smt. V.K.Tahilramani, J.] Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

the learned APP for the State.

Rule Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable . By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally.

forthwith and the matter is heard finally.

The petitioner approached the Tribunal with the The petitioner approached the Tribunal with the prayer that the Tribunal should direct respondent no.2prayer that the Tribunal should direct respondent no.2Commissioner, Konkan Bhavan to count or regularize the Commissioner, Konkan Bhavan to count or regularize the

* 2/3 * period between 6.2.1989 to 13.12.1991 in the post of clerk period between 6.2.1989 to 13.12.1991 in the post of clerk to be treated for the purpose of seniority, increment, to be treated for the purpose of seniority, increment, pension, etc. In other words, the petitioner was seeking pension, etc. In other words, the petitioner was seeking relief that the aforesaid period be treated as if on duty and relief that the aforesaid period be treated as if on duty and the said period should be regularized.

the said period should be regularized.

It is seen that the petitioner preferred a It is seen that the petitioner preferred a representation on 8.6.2011 contending that he ought not to representation on 8.6.2011 contending that he ought not to have been reverted to the post of peon from the post of have been reverted to the post of peon from the post of clerk and that the said reversion had given a break in clerk and that the said reversion had given a break in service of the petitioner as a clerk during the period from service of the petitioner as a clerk during the period from 6.2.1989 to 13.12.1991. As the petitioner did not receive 6.2.1989 to 13.12.1991. As the petitioner did not receive any reply to the representation, he preferred Original any reply to the representation, he preferred Original Application in the year 2011.

As there was delay in Application in the year 2011. As there was delay in preferring the Original Application, the petitioner preferred preferring the Original Application, the petitioner preferred an application for condonation of delay in preferring the an application for condonation of delay in preferring the Original Application. The said application was preferred in Original Application. The said application was preferred in January, 2012. The Tribunal observed that there was gross January, 2012.

* 3/3 * of delay came to be dismissed.

of delay came to be dismissed.

From the above facts, it is seen that there was From the above facts, it is seen that there was gross, inordinate delay and latches on the part of the gross, inordinate delay and latches on the part of the petitioner. No reasonable explanation has been tendered petitioner. No reasonable explanation has been tendered for the said delay. Hence, we do not find any fault with the for the said delay. Hence, we do not find any fault with the order of the Tribunal in refusing to condone the delay and order of the Tribunal in refusing to condone the delay and dismissing the application for condonation of delay. Thus, dismissing the application for condonation of delay. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere. The Writ Petition is, we are not inclined to interfere. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

accordingly, dismissed.

Rule is discharged.

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J)