← Library
Bombay High CourtCA/10780/2015disposed offdismissed for default

Shri Bhanudas Dynandeo Gambhire v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2015-09-30Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.655 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10780 OF 2015

1. The State of Maharashtra,

2. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division No.1, Fakirwada, Ahmednagar.

PETITIONERS

VERSUS

1. Bhanudas Dnyandeo Gambhire, Age-Major, Occu-Kusadgaon, Taluka Jamkhed, Dist.Ahmednagar,

2. The Learned Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Ahmednagar.

RESPONDENTS Mr.U.H.Bhogle, AGP for the petitioners.

Mr.D.R.Jaybhar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 deleted.

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) DATE : 30/09/2015 ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

Leave to delete respondent No.2, is granted, Deletion be carried out forthwith.

2.

This petition was admitted by order dated 10/07/1998. Rule on interim relief was granted. However, subsequently no interim order has been passed in favour of the petitioner. 3.

The petitioner/Establishment has challenged the judgment and award dated 11/05/1994 delivered by the Labour Court in Ref.(IDA) No.31/1991, The petitioners were directed to reinstate the respondent on the original post with continuity of service and pay back wages from the date of termination till the date of the award. 4.

It is not in dispute that respondent No.1. has been reinstated in service pursuant to the impugned award, subsequently he was promoted and finally he has retired on 31/07/2014 after attaining the age of superannuation.

5.

I have considered the submissions of the learned AGP for the petitioners and Mr.D.R.Jaybhar, learned Advocate on behalf of the sole respondent.

6.

The respondent, pursuant to the impugned award, has settled in employment. He was also promoted and has now retired from service.

7.

Considering the fact situation as above, this petition is rendered of academic interest. I am, therefore, not inclined to consider the grievance raised by the petitioners in these peculiar facts since the respondent has worked continuously after his reinstatement, has been promoted and has also retired. 8.

This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. 9.

All pending civil applications, do not survive and stand disposed of.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)