1 ndm wp.958.98 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 958 OF 1998 Abhay S. Mhalgi. ... PETITIONER Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ... RESPONDENTS -------- Mr. A.V. Anturkar for Petitioner. Mr. S.N. Bhosle, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. -------- CORAM : D.D. SINHA & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 12 th March, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned AGP. 2 The above Writ Petition impugns the judgment and order dated 21 st January, 1998 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, (MAT) Mumbai rejecting the application of the Petitioner. 3 The Petitioner was initially appointed by the Collector, Mumbai as Typist-cum-Clerk by order dated 27 th July, 1978 on the daily wages during the Government employees strike period between 14 th December, 1977 2 upto 5 th February, 1978. The Petitioner is seeking to condone the breaks in his service and to treat certain period as compulsory waiting period and to grant him pecuniary benefits. The Petitioner ultimately resigned on 01.10.1990 from the Government service to practice as an Advocate. 4 The prayer of the Petitioner before the MAT was as follows: “(i) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct to the Respondents herein to condone the break of the Applicant between the period from 28 th July 1978 to 31.3.80 namely the break given on 1.2.79 (vide Annexure A3) break given on 1.8.79 (vide Annexure A5) the break given on 1.2.80 (vide Annexure A7) and the break given on 31 st March 80 (A.N.) (Vide) Annexure A9) and/or this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct that the period between 1.4.80 to 20 th Oct 82 may be treated as the compulsory waiting period and all consequential benefits may be given to the applicant which benefits, are worked out by the Applicant (vide Annexure A43 and A44). (ii) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to declare that the respondents are liable to pay to the applicant the amount which is worked out in Annexure A43 and in Annexure A44 with such interest based upon, until the money is actually paid to the applicant herein.” 5 In para 5 of the impugned order observed as under : “5. Considering the facts that the petitioner resigned from government service sometime in 1990 to become an advocate and would not have been entitled to any pension even if the breaks in service were condoned, we fail to see the entire point in the present original 3 application. That apart even if the technical breaks of one day each when the petitioner was serving under the Collector, Pune, were to be considered for condonation (which can only be for the purpose of pension) there is no legitimate justification for condoning the break from 1.4.1980 to 5.10.1982 since the petitioner was given an altogether fresh appointment in a different cadre. In the circumstances of the case that the petitioner would not acquire any eligibility for pension, even the technical breaks of one day do not call for any condonation.” 6 The learned counsel submitted that while rejecting the application of the Petitioner, MAT has proceeded on the incorrect premise that the Petitioner’s grievance was primarily in respect of his pension. He further submitted that MAT has failed to consider the Government Resolutions relied upon by the Petitioner. 7 The learned AGP on the other hand, supported the impugned order and contended that even otherwise, the Petitioner was not entitled to the reliefs prayed by him and further submitted that the claim of the Petitioner was stale as the cause-of-action has arose sometime in 1980. 8 Having heard the rival contentions of the parties, we find that the impugned order speaks about the Petitioner seeking relief in respect of entitlement of pension, when infact, there is no such prayer sought by the Petitioner. There is also no reference in the impugned order to the Government Resolutions relied upon by the Petitioner in support of his 4 case and no proper reasons have been set out by MAT in the impugned order while rejecting the Application of the Petitioner. 9 For the aforesaid reasons, in our view, the impugned order cannot be sustained. We therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to MAT for consideration afresh. While deciding the matter, MAT shall give proper reasons and consider the Government Resolutions relied upon by the Petitioner. We further direct MAT to decide the matter expeditiously and in accordance with law, in any event within six months from today. 10 Petition disposed of in terms above. [ D.D. SINHA, J ] [ A.A. SAYED, J ]