Shri Prabhakar S/O Rajeshwar Pimpalkar, Chandrapur v. State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secty., Mumbai And 2 Otrs

WP5410.08 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.5410/2008 Prabhakar Rajeshwar Pimpalkar Vs.

State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development and Water Resources Department, others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and Registrar's orders.

Shri G.N.Khanzode, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri H.D.Dube, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Shri B.B.Mehadia, Advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.

DATED : August 29, 2019 Heard Shri G.N.Khanzode, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri H.D.Dube, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 and 2 as well as Shri B.B.Mehadia, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. Perused the writ petition. In para 9 of the writ petition, it has been stated that similar grievance as raised in this writ petition has also been raised in Writ Petition No.3411/2008. It is seen that the said writ petition was decided on 04.05.2017 and it was held that the decision of the Chief Executive Officer withdrawing the time bound promotion given to the petitioner on completion of 12 years continuous service was a proper decision which was confirmed by the Additional Commissioner in appeal.

In the present case also a similar order came to be passed by the Chief Executive Officer against the petitioner. Perusal of the order dated 08.01.1999 at Annexure-V of the writ petition indicates an order similar to the order passed in the case of Shri Ramdas Nagpure who was the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3411/2008 was also passed in the case of the present petitioner.

WP5410.08 2/2 been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. Hence for the reasons assigned in Writ Petition No. 3411/2008 the challenge raised in the present writ petition also fails. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule stands discharged with no orders as to costs. JUDGE Andurkar.