← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/11341/2018disposed offdismissed for default

Shabbir Baig Anwar Baig v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2018-10-10Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice S. M. Gavhane3 pages

1 wp 11341.18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11341 OF 2018 Shabbir Baig s/o. Anwar Baig .. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondents Mrs. Sabahat T. Kazi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. M. A. Deshpande, Addl. G. P. for Respondents. CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA & S. M. GAVHANE, JJ.

DATE:

th October, 2018 PER COURT :

1.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Original Application filed by the petitioner is finally dismissed on the ground of delay. According to the learned counsel, the first time bound promotional pay scale was granted to the applicant four years after completion of twelve years of service. This fact could be noticed by the petitioner only after his retirement. According to the learned counsel, the

2 wp 11341.18 representations are made by the present petitioner to the authorities but no decision was taken. 3.

The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that the first time bound promotional pay scale benefit was granted to the petitioner in the year 1994 and the grievance was that the first time bound promotional pay scale was granted to the petitioner four years after completion of twelve years of service and the same was agitated in the year 2016. The tribunal has rightly considered the same.

4.

The petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2013. The grievance of the petitioner is that first time bound promotional pay scale benefit was granted to him four years after completing twelve years and not immediately after twelve years. The grievance of the year - 1994 is sought to be agitated in the year - 2016 after the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2013. The petitioner is agitating the claim after a long

3 wp 11341.18 slumber of 22 years. The tribunal has rightly considered the said aspect.

5.

In the light of that, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

[S. M. GAVHANE, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] marathe