1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1266 OF 1994 Vinayak s/o Kishanrao Shendrekar, (Kulkarni), Aged 82 years, Occ.Nil, at present resident of P-222/7, Mukundwadi, Vitthalnagar, CIDCO, New Aurangabad ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Collector, Jalna, District : Jalna 3. The Tahsildar, Jalna 4. The Accountant General, Nagpur ..RESPONDENTS Mr N.K. Kakade, Advocate (appointed as amicus curiae) for the petitioner; Mr V.H. Dighe, AGP for respondents. CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 22nd JULY, 2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER P.V. HARDAS, J.] This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ for quashing and setting aside order dated 29.10.1969 terminating the services of the petitioner and also prays for quashing and setting aside memorandum dated 22.9.1976 issued by Revenue and Forest Department. The petitioner also prays that the respondents be directed to pay the petitioner pension and gratuity. 2. It appears that the petitioner came to be appointed as a Patwari by respondent no.2 on 1.11.1955. Thereafter the petitioner came to be absorbed as Talathi in July, 1960. According to the petitioner, by the impugned order dated 31.10.1969 the services of the petitioner came to be terminated without holding any Departmental Enquiry. The petitioner, therefore, has prayed for the aforesaid reliefs. 3. On notice being issued to the respondents, respondents have filed their affidavit in reply and in the affidavit in reply at paragraph 5 it is stated that no record is available with the respondents in respect of the petitioner’s appointment on the post of Patwari from 1.11.1955. It is further stated that the petitioner came to be appointed as a Talathi with effect from 1.7.1960. The sum and substance of the affidavit in reply is that since the petitioner had 3 rendered service of only 9 years, 3 months and 30 days as a Talathi, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any pension as the petitioner had not completed the qualifying service of 10 years. The sum and substance of the petition is that it is admitted that services of the petitioner came to be terminated. It is further stated that a memorandum came to be issued by the Government in which it is stated that services rendered as Patwari prior to 1.7.1960 would not be counted for the purposes of pension of Patwaris, who had been absorbed as Talathis in the Marathwada area. 4. The petitioner as pointed out by us above came to be terminated in the year 1969 and the petition thereof came to be filed on 22.9.1994. This Court issued Rule on 28.9.1994. This petition is being heard by us today i.e. on 22.7.2009. The petitioner has not annexed any documents relating to his appointment initially in 1955 as a Patwari. Respondents are not in possession of any record in respect of the appointment of the petitioner as a Patwari. The respondents admit about the appointment of the petitioner as a Talathi from 1960. According to the respondents since the petitioner had not rendered the qualifying service of ten years, the petitioner is not entitled in law to seek pension. It is also stated that no application had been forwarded by the petitioner seeking pension. Since the petitioner has also not annexed any orders in relation to his absorption or appointment as a Talathi, we find that this petition cannot be decided vis-a-vis the question about the legality of the termination order. 4 The termination had been effected practically 40 years ago and in any event, the petition came to be filed about 25 years after his termination. Apart from the fact that the petition suffers from gross laches, in the absence of adequate material it would be difficult for this Court to judge whether the petitioner was entitled in law to the protection of not being dismissed from service without holding a Departmental Enquiry. The order of termination which is annexed by the respondents with their affidavit in reply is an order terminating the services of the petitioner simpliciter without casting any stigma though in the affidavit in reply basis for such order was misappropriation of Government funds. 5. As pointed out by us above, in the absence of adequate material, we are unable to decide this petition and consequently we dismiss the petition. Rule stands discharged. We, however, quantify the fee payable to Shri N.K. Kakade, learned Counsel appointed as amicus curiae at Rs.5,000/-. Mr Kakade, learned Counsel for the petitioner has very graciously stated that on receipt of the said amount of Rs.5,000/- it would be donated by him to the Aurangabad High Court Bar Association Library. 5