1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.4957 of 2008. Dr. Anil Namdeorao Wankhade. v State of Mah and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri ND Thombre, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram : B.H. Marlapalle and A.H. Joshi, JJ. Dated : 25th November, 2008. Heard Mr. Thombre, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner who is holding the post of Medical Officer under the State Government. He approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No.136 of 2006 challenging the order dated 14-11-2002, and claimed for directions to release his salary for the period from 1-12-2002 to 21-7-2003. He claimed that the order dated 14-11-2002 was illegally passed and thereafter, he was not allowed to report for duty till 21-7-2003 and therefore, he must be treated as on duty and paid salary. 2 The applicant came to be appointed for the first time on 21-10-2009 as Medical Officer, and was subsequently, appointed as Medical Superintendent. Since July, 2002, he was working at the General Hospital Amravati, and by the impugned order dated 14-11-2002, he was relieved from his duty so as to attend the training in Intensive Care Unit. The petitioner did not attend the said training programme and continued to remain on Medical Leave from 15-11-2002 to 22-11-2002. Even otherwise, it was submitted before the Tribunal and as is evident from the order dated 14-11- 2002 that in the meeting held on 11-10-2002 between the Civil Surgeon and the Director of Health Services Mumbai, it was decided that the petitioner would be deputed for attending the training programme in I.C.U. With effect from 14-11-2002. The petitioner holds MD Degree in General Medicine and it was appropriate that he was deputed for training. The petitioner in definance of the order dated 14-11-2002 remained on leave on the ground 3 of ill health and he reported for duty on 23-7-2003. Thus, for the intervening period, he could not have claimed to be on duty, and release of his salary. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the relieving order dated 14-11-2002 could not be held to be legal and consequently, the petitioner was not entitled for the payment of salary from 1-12-2002 to 21-7-2003. The view taken by the Tribunal cannot be termed as perverse or erroneous so as to cause interference at the hands of this Court. The Tribunal while dismissing the O. A. No.136 of 2006 considered the averments made by the petitioner and the reply of the respondents. It noted that before he approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application, he has filed a complaint of Unfair Labour Practice i. e. Complaint (ULP) No.14 of 2003 before the Industrial Court at Amravati on 24-4-2003. The said complaint came to be dismissed in default, and therefore, he filed a Misc. Application for restoration of the complaint. The said application was also dismissed on 20-12-2005 on the ground inter alia that the application 4 for restoration was filed beyond limitations and there was no case made out to condone the delay caused in applying restoration. Even otherwise, it was submitted before the Tribunal and as is evident from the Order dated 14-1-2002 that in the meeting held on 11-10-2002 between the Civil Surgeon and the Director of Health Services Mumbai, it was decided that the petitioner would be deputed for attending a training programme in ICU with effect from 14-11-2002. The petitioner holds MD Degree in General Medicine and it was appropriate that he was deputed for training. The petitioner in defiance of the order dated 14-1-2002 remained on leave on the ground of ill health, and he reported for duty on 23-7-2003. Thus, for intervening period, he could not have claimed to be on duty, and release of his salary. Tribunal, therefore, held that relieving order dated 14-11-2002 could not be illegal and consequently, the petitioner was not entitled for payment of salary from 1-12-2002 to 21-7-2003. The view taken by the Tribunal cannot be termed as perverse or 5 erroneous so as to cause interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, the petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/