The State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, Revenue Department, Mumbai And 2 Others v. Methilal S/O Ghusaji Nangaye

cao200.14.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

Civil Application No.200/2014 in Misc. C. A. St. No.1182/2014 (For Review) in Writ Petition No.4000/2002 (Decided) The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue Deptt. & 2 ors...vs..Shri Methilal s/o Ghusaji Nangaye _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

______________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Ukey, A.G.P. for applicants.

Mr. V. R. Borkar, Advocate for non applicant. CORAM : A.B.CHAUDHARI & Z. A. HAQ, JJ.

DATED : 06.02.2015 Heard.

This is an application for condonation of delay of 121 days, caused in filing the present application. For the reasons stated in paragraph nos. 1 to 5 of the application and in view of no objection on the part of the non applicant, the delay is condoned.

Civil Application No. 200/2014 is disposed of accordingly.

Misc. Civil Application St. No. 1182/2014 Heard.

The applicants seek review of judgment and order dated 22.08.2013, upholding the entitlement of the non applicant for the benefits on the basis of adjudication of the issue by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which was on the basis of Government Resolution dated

cao200.14.odt 22.10.1996. The applicants seek review of the judgment on the ground that vide G. R. dated 23.09.2011, policy of the State Government is otherwise and the candidates like the non applicant are not entitled to regularization in services as ordered. The submissions made on behalf of the applicant, relying on the circular dated 23.09.2011, are misdirected inasmuch as entitlement of non applicant is upheld on the basis of the policy, which was prevalent at the relevant time. In view of above, we find no reason to review the order inasmuch as it cannot be said that there is any error apparent on the face of record.

Misc. Civil Application St. No. 1182/2014 for review is, therefore, rejected. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE kahale