Shri. Homdas S/O Kisan Upre v. Sau. Meerabai W/O Namdeo Gaurkar And Another

1 caw99.20.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Civil Application (CAW) No.99 of 2020 in Writ Petition No.5092/2018 Homdas Upre Vs. Meerabai Gaurkar and Anr.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court'

s or Judge'

s orders appearances, Court'

s orders of directions and Registrar'

s orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. N.R. Bhishikar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. A.A. Dhawas, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr. R.H. Chandurkar, Advocate for the respondent No.2. CORAM :MANISH PITALE, J.

DATED : JANUARY 21, 2020 By this application for speaking to minutes, it is submitted on behalf of the applicant / respondent No.1 that certain observations said to have been made by this Court are not reflected in order dated 18/12/2019, passed by this Court. A request is made that this Court may observe that during pendency of the suit, the respondent No.2 Western Coalfields Ltd., may consider the question of granting appointment in terms of its policy.

2.

In response, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that if such decision was to be taken by the respondent No.2, it ought to be subject to the result of the suit. But, when specific query was put to the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 as regards its policy, it is stated that as per the policy of the respondent No.2, no appointment could be granted

2 caw99.20.odt when litigation is pending. Therefore, it is obvious that the observations sought by the private parties in this writ petition cannot be granted. Hence, application is dismissed.

JUDGE MP Deshpande