Gorakh Ganpat Dhokle v. The State Of Mahrashtra And Others

1 wp 224.20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 224 OF 2020 GORAKH GANPAT DHOKLE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Kakade Amol N . AGP for Respondents : Mr. V. M. Kagne ...

CORAM:S. V. GANGAPURWALA & MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE: 14th JANUARY, 2020 PER COURT:

1.

Heard Mr. Kakade, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has worked as a Muster Assistant since the year 1983. The respondents were intending to terminate the services of the petitioner. The petitioner approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court decided in favour of the petitioner. The Labour Court directed the respondent to grant work to the petitioner and also grant continuity.

2 wp 224.20 3.

The learned A.G.P. submits that the Labour Court did not continue the service of the petitioner nor granted permanency. The petitioner is not entitled for consideration of the services rendered as Muster Assistant for pension purpose. 4.

It appears from the judgment of the Labour Court that Labour Court has not granted continuity in service nor permanency. The petitioner's service would be counted from the date the petitioner is absorbed and the services rendered as Muster Assistant cannot be considered for pension purpose in absence of any order.

5.

In the light of that, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

6.

Writ Petition, as such is disposed of. No costs.

[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] marathe