Dr. Rajendra Prasad v. Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University, Thr. Registrar, Amravati

2024:BHC-NAG:1681 1 mca 498.2021.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

Misc. Civil Application No. 498 of 2021 in Writ Petition No.

of 20 (D) [Dr. Rajendra Prasad ..vs.. Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University, Through its Registrar, Amravati] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S. S. Sanyal with Ms. Shiba Thakur, Advocates for the applicant/petitioner Mr. P. A. Gupta, Advocate h/f Mrs. Gauri Venkatramam, Advocate for the non-applicant/respondent CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE J .

DATED : 12-02 -202 The applicant - original petitioner seeks to restore Writ Petition No. 4874/2017.

2.

However, perusal of order dated 10-2-2021 by which the petition has been dismissed indicates that the inference has been drawn on merit, order reads thus : "1.

Heard learned counsel Shri J.B.Kasat for the respondent. None appears for the petitioner. 2.

Learned counsel Shri Kasat for the respondent, submits that after termination, the petitioner preferred appeal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act before the University and College Tribunal, Nagpur. The said appeal was registered as Appeal No.A-2/2012. It is his submission that the said appeal was allowed by judgment dated 9.10.2014 by quashing order of termination. Accordingly, it is his submission that the petitioner is reinstated in service. He submitted that the present writ petition is filed for claiming full back wages. It is his submission that back wages were not claimed by the petitioner when he presented the appeal before the Tribunal.

2 mca 498.2021.odt Therefore, there was no order passed by the Tribunal in respect of back wages.

3.

Since the petitioner himself has not claimed back wages in the memo of appeal before the Tribunal, the same was not granted by the Tribunal.

4.

Considering submissions of learned counsel Shri Kasat for the respondent, there is no merit in the petition. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs."

3.

It is thus clear that the petition has been not dismissed for want of prosecution. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that none appeared for petitioner because of the outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic. This cannot be ground for restoration of petition which has been decided on merit. There is no substance in the application. The application is rejected.

(Anil L. Pansare, J.) wasnik