Shivaji Laxmikant Koleshwar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

{1} wp11559.18.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11559 OF 2018 Shivaji s/o Laxmikant Koleshwar Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr. S.G. Joshi, advocate for petitioner.

Mrs. V.N. Patil-Jadhav, A.G.P. for respondents no. 1 and 2. CORAM : R.M.BORDE & MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 1st November, 2018 PER COURT:

1.

Earlier petitioner had presented petition claim following reliefs :- (i) Quash and set aside impugned order No. PRO:PL:G-47/97 issued by the respondent No. 1 dated 07.05.1997 issued by the respondent.

(ii) Quash and set aside impugned Order No. 270600/Actt./Auditrec./2011 dated 03.05.2011 issued by the respondent and illegally recovered amount of Rs. 301124.00 from the petitioners salary for nonperformance; (iii) Direct the respondents to refund to the petitioner amount of Rs. 301124.00 within a period of six weeks together with interest @ 18% per annum and restore his pay scale prior to decrements and by granting increments retrospectively as per rules;

{2} wp11559.18.odt (iv) Direct the respondents to provide any light suitable job commensurate with his disability.

(v) Alternately if no suitable job is available with the respondents then direct the respondents to keep the petitioner on supernumerary post until then such post is available in the future;

(vi) Grant interest @ 18% per annum from the date petitioner paid such sums and respondents recovered from the salary of the petitioner.

(vii) Allow the petition with full reliefs.

(viii) Saddle the cost on the respondents.

2.

The petition earlier presented by petitioner has been dismissed by Division Bench of this Court after hearing and on recording detailed reasons in support of the final order. The petitioner, after availing liberty granted, tendered a representation which has also been turned down.

3.

In view of dismissal of the substantive petition presented by petitioner, instant petition claiming identical reliefs need not be considered. Petition is devoid of substance hence stands rejected. MANGESH S. PATIL R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE dyb