-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4510 OF 2008 Ashok Panchakshari Vibhute ... Petitioner versus The Hon' ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and others ... Respondents Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sidharth Karpe and Mrs. N. Trivedi, instructed by M/s. YKS Legal, for the petitioner. Mr. V.S. Masurkar, Government Pleader, for the respondents. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & ANOOP V. MOHTA , JJ. DATE: APRIL 08 , 2009 P.C. The petitioner, who was appointed as Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, in the year 1978, has challenged the dismissal order passed by the High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 7110 of 1999. The Division Bench of this Court on 17th August, 2006, disposed of the said petition, after recording the statement of the learned Advocate General to the effect that the respondents have considered the request on behalf of the petitioner to opt for a voluntary retirement instead of the decision of the administration for dismissal of the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to -2- submit a representation in this behalf within a period of one week from the date of the said order. The petitioner accordingly withdrew the said petition with liberty to make a representation for the consideration of the Administrative side of the High Court for considering his case for voluntary retirement instead of dismissal. 2. The representation of the petitioner was, however, rejected on 13th March, 2008. The said order was communicated by the Registrar General to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has again filed this writ petition challenging his earlier dismissal order dated 29th May, 1999 as well as the order passed by the Administrative side of the High Court rejecting his representation. 3. Today, at the time of hearing of this petition, Mr. Masurkar, learned Government Pleader, submits that the subject matter was placed before the Hon' ble Administrative Judges Committee on 24th March, 2009 and it has been decided to recall the decision dated 24th August, 2007, rejecting the representation dated 21st August, 2006 of the petitioner in connection with the voluntary retirement. 4. Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel, however, vehemently submitted that when earlier a statement was made by the learned Advocate -3- General that the representation of the petitioner to opt for voluntary retirement will be appropriately dealt with, after considerable time his representation was rejected. Mr. Sakhare, however, fairly submitted that if the representation of the petitioner is granted, the petitioner may not press this petition on any other points. He, however, requested that the matter may be kept pending till the decision on his representation is taken by the Hon'ble Administrative Judges Committee. In the alternative, he submitted that he may be allowed to argue the matter on merits as, according to him, the dismissal order could not have been passed against the petitioner on various grounds. Mr. Sakhare further submitted that his representation could not have been rejected, as earlier a statement was already made by the Advocate General at the time when the High Court disposed of his earlier writ petition that his representation will be appropriately considered and that when an assurance was given by the Advocate General that the respondents have considered the request on behalf of the petitioner to opt for a voluntary retirement and for which purpose petitioner was asked to make representation, his representation could not have been rejected. 5. Mr. Masurkar, the learned Government Pleader, submitted that the Hon' ble Administrative Judges Committee of the High Court is going to take an appropriate decision again on the representation of the petitioner and while taking such decision, the observations made by the Division Bench earlier in -4- Writ Petition No. 7110 of 1999 preferred by the petitioner shall be taken into consideration. The said order of the Division Bench be placed on record before the Administrative Judges Committee who are going to decide the representation. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at great length, we are of the opinion that when now a stand is taken by the High Court to decide the representation of the petitioner afresh by withdrawing the decision dated 24th August, 2007, rejecting the representation dated 21st August, 2006 of the petitioner, it would not be just and proper to keep this matter pending. If the representation of the petitioner is rejected, it is always open to the petitioner to challenge the said decision on all points available as per law. Once it is pointed out to the Court by the learned Government Pleader that the representation is going to be decided again, it would not be proper to keep the matter pending awaiting the decision. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court on its Administrative side, may take an appropriate decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 21st August, 2006 afresh and whatever may be the decision, the same may be communicated to the petitioner without any further delay. The learned Government Pleader states that all attempts will be made to see that the representation of the petitioner is decided on or before 8th May, 2009 i.e. before commencement of the summer vacation. -5- 7. Considering the stand taken by the respondents, in our view, it would not be just and proper to keep the matter pending. We, therefore, in view of the subsequent developments, dispose of this petition. If the ultimate decision of the Hon'ble Administrative Judges Committee is against the petitioner, the same may be communicated to the petitioner without any further delay and it will be open to the petitioner to revive this petition by filing an appropriate application in that behalf. It is also clarified that all points raised in the petition are kept open. It is clarified that we have not adjudicated the matter on merits, as within short time a fresh decision is likely to be taken by the Hon' ble Administrative Judges Committee in connection with the representation of the petitioner. 8. Subject to what is stated above, the petition is disposed of. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.