Kondabai Manik Chaudhari v. State Of Maharashtra And Others
2063.15wp (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2063 OF 2015 Smt. Kondabai Manik Chaudhari ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & ors.
..RESPONDENTS Mr V. U. Jadhav, Advocate for petitioner;
Mr S. G. Sangle, Advocate for respondent No.1; Mr G. G. Kadam, Advocate for respondent No.2; Mr Krishna Rodge, Advocate holding for Mr P. G. Rodge, Advocate for respondent No.3 CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATE : 26th November, 2019 ORAL ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2.
By way of present writ petition, a notice dated 12th January, 2015, directing the petitioner to submit the caste validity certificate within a stipulated period and failure of the petitioner resulting in termination of her service, was challenged.
3.
While issuing notice on 24th February, 2015, the Division Bench of this Court protected the petitioner by a direction that no adverse action be taken against her purusant to the impugned notice. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 invited
2063.15wp (2) our attention to the compilation of the documents, which is marked 'X' for identification and more particularly the communications dated 18th February, 2016 and 9th December, 2016. By a communication dated 18th February, 2016, notice was issued to the petitioner informing her that she is due for retirement on attaining the age of superannuation. By an order dated 9th December, 2016, she was subjected to retirement and it was informed her to submit all the requisite documents so as to facilitate respondent Nos.2 and 3 to process her pensionary claims. 4.
It is specifically submited by learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 that pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, not only the petitioner's service was protected but no coercive action in any form of recovery was initiated against her. 5.
Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that as the petition served its purpose, no further orders are required to be passed in the present petition and same is disposed of accordingly. (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.) sjk