← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/818/2019disposed offdismissed for default

Shaikh Isaq Shaikh Jafar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2019-02-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prasanna B. Varale,Hon'Ble Shri Justice S. M. Gavhane3 pages

( 1 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.818 OF 2019 SHAIKH ISAQ SHAIKH JAFAR

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS Mr.Omgashad B. Boinwad, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs.M.A.Deshpande, AGP for the respondents/State CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.

DATED :

08.02.2019 P.C. :- .

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.

The limited grievance is raised in the petition.

3.

The petitioner who entered in the service of respondent No.2 Zilla Parishad, Jalna as a Peon some time in the year 1986 and thereafter the petitioner was promoted as a Junior Clerk and then Senior Assistant. It may not be necessary for us to refer to other details. Suffice to say that the petitioner stood retired in the year 2017 and though the petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Accountant Officer with effect in the year 2015, the

( 2 ) promotional post was not considered so as to grant benefits to the petitioner.

4.

The petitioner had approached the respondent authorities namely Additional Commissioner, Chief Executive Officer and also the authority of the Zilla Parishad i.e. Chief Accountant and Finance Officer by submitting his representation dated 08.05.2017. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the representations are pending decision till date of filing of the petition and till today also. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petition was filed in the year 2017, due to certain office objections, the registration of the petition was refused and the petitioner sought for restoration of the petition. The Division Bench of this Court accordingly passed the order and then by placing on record certain documents, the petition is circulated. Perusal of the order shows that on 12.10.2018 the application for restoration was allowed.

5.

Considering this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the facts above

( 3 ) referred, the petition is disposed of at the admission stage with direction to respondent No.3 to decide the representation dated 08.05.2017, 24.05.2017 & 24.07.2017 as expeditiously as possible and not later than 12 weeks from the date of order of this Court, if already not decided.

6.

With these directions, the petition is disposed of.

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.] VishalK/wp818.19