Vasant Bhanudasrao Kulkarni v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

142-WP-2945-2011.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2945 OF 2011 WITH CA/6961/2017 IN WP/2945/2011 WITH CA/6963/2017 IN WP/2945/2011 WITH CA/7601/2023 IN WP/2945/2011 WITH CA/119/2012 IN WP/2945/2011 WITH CA/6962/2017 IN WP/2945/2011 WITH CA/803/2019 IN WP/2945/2011 WITH CA/6964/2017 IN WP/2945/2011 WITH CA/5493/2018 IN WP/2945/2011 VASANT BHANUDASRAO KULKARNI

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ....

Mr. Vasant B. Kulkarni, Party-in-person Mr. P. S. Patil, AGP for Respondent - State Mr. U. B. Bondar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 ....

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE : 21.08.2023 PER COURT :- 1.

On the last occasion, when this matter was listed before a coordinate Bench, the Petitioner had engaged an Advocate to work out this petition. The Court, therefore, listed the matter at 2.30 p.m. on 09.08.2023. Due to paucity of time, it was posted on 21.08.2023.

(( 2 )) 2.

Today, the Petitioner in person started grumbling about the learned Advocate who was representing him and submitted that he would address the Court in-person. Considering his advanced age of around 85 years and considering the service dispute that has been raised in this petition, which was admitted by this Court (Coram: D. B. Bhosale and S. B. Deshmukh, JJ.) on 10.06.2011, we were of the view that the Petitioner would require legal assistance since he is unable to communicate with us even in Marathi, because of health issues.

3.

Since the petitioner-in-person desires to address the Court, the available option is that he could sit in a chair in the Court Hall and address us. The other option is that he can address us on video conferencing from his home. The third option is that he may tender his written notes of submissions.

4.

The petitioner-in-person, after pondering over the said options, submits that if he is granted time, he would tender his written notes of submissions.

(( 3 )) 5.

We are granting him time upto 08.09.2023 to tender his written notes of submissions. Hence, this matter be listed on 08.09.2023 at 2.30 p.m.

6.

With the consent of the petitioner-in-person, the Civil Application No. 119 of 2012, which was filed for advancing notes of arguments, is disposed off.

7.

Civil Application No. 6961 of 2017 was filed for seeking appropriate orders in the Writ Petition. The same stands disposed off as the petition is now being listed for final hearing. 8.

Civil Application No.6962 of 2017 was filed for stating the facts of the case and for seeking orders in relation to the medical treatment of the wife of the Petitioner. The same would not survive and stands disposed off as we would be deciding the claim of the Petitioner, finally.

9.

Civil Application No. 6963 of 2017 was filed by the Petitioner for claiming seniority scale of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.13,500/-. This application would also not survive in view of the petition being listed for final hearing. The same is therefore disposed off. Needless

(( 4 )) to state, all contentions of the Petitioner would be considered as he would be submitting his written notes.

10.

Civil Application No. 6964 of 2017 was filed for making a grievance against wrong conversion of pay scale. This issue would also be dealt with in the petition and hence, the civil application is disposed off.

11.

Civil Application No.5493 of 2018 was filed for a final hearing in the writ petition. This civil application would also not survive and stands disposed off.

12.

Civil Application No.803 of 2019 was filed by the Petitioner in Marathi, trying to make out a case of wrong pay fixation. This issue would be considered in the writ petition and, therefore, this civil application stands disposed off.

13.

Civil Application No. 7601 of 2023 was filed by the Petitioner for seeking a date for final hearing in this matter. As this petition is listed for final hearing and the petitioner would be tendering his written notes on 08.09.2023, this civil application stands disposed off.

(( 5 )) 14.

The learned Advocate Shri Bhargav Bhushan Kulkarni submits that since the Petitioner in person has expressed reservations about him, he seeks discharge. As such, the appearance of learned Advocate Shri Kulkarni, on behalf of the Petitioner, is discharged. [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ] SMS