← Library
Bombay High CourtRA/105/2019disposed offdismissed for default

The Registrar Maharashtra Agriculture University Parbhani v. Padma Tirupati Peddalwar And Others

2019-04-05Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Arun M. Dhavale2 pages

930review

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 930 REVIEW APPLICATION ST. NO.15204 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5103 OF 1999 THE REGISTRAR MAHARASHTRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY PARBHANI

VERSUS

PADMA TIRUPATI PEDDALWAR AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr.Patnurkar V.D.

AGP for Respondents State: Mr. S. B.Pulkundwar Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. D.V.Soman

CORAM

: S. V. GANGAPURWALA & A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.

DATE : 5th April, 2019 PER COURT :

1. Applicant seeks review of the order dated 4th September, 2014 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5103/1999.

2.

Mr. Patnurkar, the learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the Scheme, pursuant to which the petitioner was appointed as Senior Clerk came to an end in the year 1989. The non applicant could not have been continued in services. It is only on the basis of interim order, the non-applicant, original writ petition was continued in service. In fact the statement made by the learned counsel for the applicant in the writ petition was not in tune with the correct 1/2

930review state of affair and was not instructed as such.

3. Non-applicant, original writ petitioner, was protected in service pursuant to the interim orders passed on 15.03.2000 in the writ petition and the interim order was continued till the matter was finally disposed of on 04.09.2014.

4.

On 04.09.2014, learned Advocate for the present applicant made statement that the present applicant would not disturb original writ petitioner's postilion as Senior Clerk till her retirement. In view of that writ petition was allowed in terms of interim order passed on 15.03.2000.

5.

Original writ petitioner is now on the verge of retirement. The Court order was passed relying on the statement made by the learned Advocate for the present applicant. Considering the overall view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the present review application. Revision application as such is disposed of. No costs.

(A. M.DHAVALE,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) JPC 2/2