Sadashiv Keshavrao Metangale v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2025:BHC-AUG:33733-DB 1 126.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 126 WRIT PETITION NO. 14438 OF 2021 SADASHIV KESHAVRAO METANGALE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshpande Ajay S. AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.R. Yadav-Lonikar ...

CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE : 01.12.2025 PER COURT :

.

Heard.

2.

The petitioner seeks directions to the respondent/authorities to permit him to put/wear a uniform of post of the Superintendent of State Excise on the days like Republic and Independence. The petitioner rests his claim on the Government Notification issued on 24.11.1945.

3.

The learned A.G.P adverts our attention to Government Resolution dated December, 2003 whereunder an uniform has been prescribed for the first time for the officers of the Excise Department in the rank of Deputy Superintendent to the Deputy Commissioner of Excise. In short according to learned A.G.P., when no prescribed uniform was there for the petitioner's post when he retired from service, then how could he be permitted to put on the same on the national days.

2 126.doc 5.

According to learned Advocate for the petitioner's, the same has not been stated in the orders turning down the petitioner's request. 6.

Considering the nature of the grievance/prayers, we do not propose to drive the petitioner back to the Respondent/authorities. Admittedly, the petitioner retired in the year 2000. He was holding the post of Superintendent of Excise department. No particular uniform was prescribed for the said post. It is only in 2003, with reference to aforesaid G.R, a uniform came to be prescribed for the officials in the ranks of Deputy Superintendent of State Excise onwards. As such on the day on which the petitioner stood retired, he did not have any particular uniform. Therefore, permitting him to use the one which has been prescribed for the very post, post his retirement could not be permitted.

7.

We are therefore, not with the petitioner. The Writ Petition, therefore, stands dismissed.

( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) ( R.G. AVACHAT, J. ) vsj..