wp1530.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.1530/2011 Kishor Krushnarao Ingle -vs- Nagpur University through its Registrar and another ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri S. A. Akolkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 29.08.2011. Heard Shri Akolkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Grievance Committee seeking continuity of service and other consequential benefits including fixation of the pay. It is canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is seeking the only relief of continuity of service as the petitioner is entitled to the same. The Grievance Committee did not commit any error in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner by the impugned order dated 13/08/2010. The Grievance Committee rightly considered that the petitioner was reinstated in the establishment of the Nagpur University with effect from the date of his joining on the terms and conditions enumerated in the settlement which was arrived at, before the Lok Adalat on 15/09/2001. None of the terms and conditions stated in the wp1530.11.odt 2/2 settlement pursis showed that the petitioner was granted continuity in service. In fact, it was stated in the terms and conditions that the petitioner would be employed as a junior most fixed pay employee and his employment in that cadre would be counted from the date of his joining. In case, the petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed by the Lok Adalat, the petitioner ought to have challenged the same, but the petitioner had no right to seek continuity of service by approaching the Grievance Committee in an appeal. Since the order passed by the Grievance Committee is just and proper, the same calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE