Bombay High CourtCAO/1004/2015dispossed offdismiss for default

Vilas S/O Baburao Lakhdive And Another v. State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary General Administration Dept. And Others

2015-08-28Hon'Ble Shri Justice B. P. Dharmadhikari,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

2808cao1004.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CAO NO. 1004/2015 AND MCA ST. NO. 24550/2014 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1286 OF 2013 (Vilas s/o Baburao Lakhdive & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra thr. its Secretary, General Administrative Department & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & Z.A. HAQ, JJ.

AUGUST 28, 2015.

Heard Shri Raut, learned counsel for the applicants/ petitioners.

The prayer is to condone delay of 295 days in filing MCA St. No. 24550 of 2014.

In the facts of this case, before issuing notice, we have attempted to find out whether there is any merit in the proposed revision application/ MCA. Writ Petition No. 1286 of 2013 filed by present review applicants has been disposed of on 21.01.2014 by this Court after hearing the learned counsel then representing them. This Court directed Chief Executive Officer (employer) to hear all the concerned and then to pass fresh orders. Accordingly, CEO has passed fresh orders.

Now, through another counsel, the review applicants are before this Court contending that the CEO has gone by directions of this Court in an earlier writ petition filed by persons who have become senior, in the cadre of Superintendent, to these applicants/ petitioners. It is submitted that in that writ petition

2808cao1004.15 the present applicants had filed a civil application and as that civil application has not been disposed of, the rights of these applicants (petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1286 of 2013) have been violated.

This Court while disposing of the writ petition on 21.01.2014 found that promotions given to present petitioners were not substantive or permanent. The grievance was not then raised that any other civil application filed by these petitioners/ applicants was pending or needed consideration. It is not in dispute that CEO has obeyed the orders dated 21.01.2014 and has passed further orders.

In this situation, we find the review application misconceived. As such, there is no question of issuing notice. Both the applications are disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.