Bombay High CourtWP/3841/2019dismissedrule discharged

Anand S/O Rambhau Chimurkar v. Honble Minister (Rural Development) Department Of Village Development, Mumbai And Others

2019-06-06Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 wp3841.19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3841 OF 2019 (ANAND RAMBHAU CHIMURKAR...VS.. HON. MINISTER RURAL DEVELOPMENT & OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms Geeta Tiwari, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : JUNE 06, 2019.

Shri S.U. Bhuyar, Advocate, who is appointed to represent the petitioner, was absent in the morning session. The matter was kept back. In the afternoon session when the matter is called out, again Shri S.U. Bhuyar, Advocate is absent.

With the assistance of the learned A.G.P., I have examined the record of the writ petition.

The petitioner was relieved from service on 30th April 2002, accepting his request for voluntary retirement. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed complaint/ application dated 24th March 2009 objecting to his relieving and acceptance of the voluntary retirement request. This complaint/application came to be rejected by the Chief Executive Officer and then the representation made by the petitioner, in the matter, to the Additional Commissioner is dismissed by the impugned decision.

I find that the relevant facts are considered by the learned Additional Commissioner in paragraph No.3 of the impugned decision. In the memo of petition, the petitioner

2 wp3841.19 has not been able to point out anything on the basis of which it can be said that the impugned decision suffers from any illegality or perversity.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. As the Advocate, who is appointed by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur to represent the petitioner, has not attended the proceedings, fees shall not be paid to him.

JUDGE RRaut..