Bombay High Court
Sachin Ramrao Patil vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 October, 2020
Author: N.R. Borkar
Bench: K.K.Tated, N.R. Borkar
Rkm 1 (14)WPST-94022-20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally
signed by
Rajshree More
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Rajshree Date:
More 2020.10.16
15:39:01
+0530
WRIT PETITION(S)NO.94022 OF 2020
Sachin Ramarao Patil ] ... Petitioner
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. ] ... Respondents
Mr.Bhavesh Parmar i/b Devmani Shukla a/w Vivekanand Akashali and
Rajesh Sahani, for Petitioner.
Mr.S.S. Panchpor, AGP for State.
CORAM : K.K.TATED, &
N.R. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 15 OCTOBER, 2020.
(Through Video Conferencing)
P.C. :
1] Heard learned counsel for parties.
2] By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, Petitioner is challenging transfer order dated 7 July, 2018 and termination order dated 28 August, 2018 passed by Respondent No.2. 3] Mr. Bhavesh Parmar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner submits that against the transfer order dated 7 July, 2018, Petitioner made representation dated 13 July, 2018 stating that he was transferred to the post which was not equivalent to the post which he Rkm 2 (14)WPST-94022-20 was holding. Not only that, when he received termination order dated 28 August, 2018, the Petitioner made representation for recalling the said order. He submits that Respondent No.2 terminated the services of Petitioner for no justifiable reasons.
4] It appears that the Petitioner was President of the Union by name Mahatma Gandhi Rashtriya Gramin Rojgar Hami Kayada Karmachari Sanghatana (Maharashtra). Earlier, through Union he filed Writ Petition (S) No.23990 of 2018. In that Petition, this Court (Coram :
A.A. Sayed & S.C. Gupte, JJ) passed order on 30 August, 2018, in which it is specifically stated that the services of workers except Petitioner shall not be discontinued. Para 4 of the said order reads thus :
"In these circumstances, we direct that until next date, the services of the workers shown in the said List (except Sachin Ramrao Patil at Sr. No.3) shall not be discontinued unless they are found to be medically unfit or their performance is unsatisfactory or on disciplinary grounds. We make it clear that protection granted by this order shall not apply if any of the workers in the said List are already discontinued."
5] The order dated 30 August, 2018 specifically shows that the Petitioner had knowledge about his termination. However, inspite of of that, instead of filing appropriate proceeding, he made representation. The present Petition is filed in September, 2020 i.e. Rkm 3 (14)WPST-94022-20 after more than two years. Hence, present Petition suffers from delay and laches.
6] Learned counsel for Petitioner submits that his representation came to be decided on 22 July, 2020 and the present Petition is filed immediately thereafter, hence, there are no laches. 7] We are not inclined to accept the submission as representation is no remedy against the termination. It is to be noted that the Petitioner was the President of the Union and he filed the Petition through Union when there was apprehension of discontinuation. However, present Petition is filed more than two years of termination. Considering all these facts, following order is passed :
a] Writ Petition stands dismissed.
b] No order as to costs.
c] This order will be digitally signed by the Personal
Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on a digitally signed copy of this order.
[N.R.BORKAR, J] [K.K.TATED, J]