Shri Ganba S/O Vithoba Burade v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Mumbai Thr. Its Managing Director And Others

2023:BHC-NAG:17455-DB J WP-7592-2018.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.

OF 201 PETITIONER :

Shri Ganba S/o Vithoba Burade, Age 63 years, Occ: Retired, R/o Shastri Nagar Tumsar, Dist Bhandara ..VERSUS..

RESPONDENTS : 1 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd Through its Managing Director, Prakash Gad Plot no G9, Anant Kanekar Marg Bandra(E) Mumbai.

The Superintending Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd NH6Vidya Nagar Bhandara. Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd, Nh-6 Vidya Nagar Bhandara.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr P. S. Tiwari, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr A. D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : SMT ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI AND MRS VRUSHALI V. JOSHI , JJ.

DATED th DECEMBER , 2023.

ORAL

JUDGMENT

: (PER:

SMT ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI , J.

) .

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties. TAMBE

J WP-7592-2018.odt 2.

The petitioner seeks directions against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to pay his dues towards leave encashment of unclaimed commuted leave of 180 days. The petitioner was appointed as Lineman in respondent No.1 - Company. He has superannuated from service on 31.10.2015.

3.

The case of the petitioner is that he has not been paid leave encashment dues of unclaimed commuted leave of 180 days. This statement is disputed by the respondents. The respondents have placed on record service book of the petitioner as well as Office Order dated 04.12.2015, which prima facie indicates that the petitioner has availed leave of 180 days, while he was in service. The question, whether the petitioner has availed commuted leave of 180 days or not, is disputed of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. 4.

Since the petition involves disputed question of fact, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach any other appropriate Authority for redressal of his grievance. Rule is discharged.

(VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) TAMBE