1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1019 OF 1998 Shri. Vitthal Sahadeo Prabhu .. Petitioner. -versus State of Maharashtra and ors .. Respondents. Mr.Dilip Bodke, i/b C. H. Gangan, for the petitioners. Mr S.M.Dandekar, AGP for the State. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH & R. G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED: 11th August, 2009. P.C. 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the communication dated 11.1.1996, from the office of Deputy Director of Education, declining to condone the break in service of the petitioner from l4.6.l976 to 6.1.1978. The petitioner was in the service of the respondent as an Assistant Teacher in the school known as Shivaji Vidyalaya, Kalachowky. The petitioner was 2 found surplus to the needs of the School because of introduction of the new pattern of education. The Government had issued resolution in month of March, l976, that the teachers whose services are found to be surplus to the needs of the school because of the new pattern of school, their services should not be terminated. But it appears that despite the Government Resolution, by order dated l4.6.l976, the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner did not make any grievance before any authority against that termination order. It appears that there are office orders issued by the Education Department to get petitioner absorbed in other school. Accordingly letter dated 26th April, l978 was addressed by respondent No.3 to Head Master of Paranjape Vidyalaya at Andheri (E), Bombay, asking him to absorb the petitioner in service as a surplus teacher. Admittedly the petitioner was not absorbed in the service of Paranjape Vidyalaya. Ultimately pursuant his application dated 6.7.l978, submitted to Abhyudaya Education Society’s High School, petitioner was appointed 3 as Assistant Teacher by order dated 6.7.l978 on probation for a period of two years. This order does not absorb the petition in the service but gives him fresh appointment. This was contrary to the Government Resolution which contemplated absorption of the surplus teachers in other school on the same terms and conditions with continuity in service and protection of pay. But the petitioner did not make any grievance against the appointment order. The petitioner retired from service on 31.3.1989. Even after his retirement, the petitioner did not make any grievance either against the termination of service in the year l976 or against his appointment as fresh recruit in the year l978. Ultimately it appears that a proposal was submitted for pension where a claim was made for condonation of break in service from 11.6.1976 to 6.7.l978. The Education Officer by his letter dated 3l.3.l997, addressed to Deputy Director of Education, Greater Bombay, informed that the services of the petitioner were not absorbed in any other school. He was not paid for the period 11.6.l976 to 6.7.l978. In this background, the 4 Deputy Director of Education, declined to condone the break because the maximum period for which break can be condoned as per Government Resolution is 2 years. It is clear from the record that the termination order of the petitioner in l976 was contrary to Government resolution of March, l976. But the petitioner accepted termination order and did not make any grievance against it. Had the petitioner been absorbed pursuant to Government Resolution, his services would have been protected, his pay would have been protected and he would have been continued in the service. In fact his service was not protected, his pay was not protected and he was appointed on probation. The petitioner accepted that order without any demur and did not make any grievance till he retired and he approached the Court for the first time in the year l998 ie after l997 when the Deputy Director declined to condone the break in service. 2. In our opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief because of the conduct of the petitioner. The petitioner by not making grievance against termination 5 order of l976 and accepting appointment order of l978, without making any grievance against it till l998, has abandoned his right or waived his right and now the petitioner can not resile from his stand. Petition fails. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J) (R.G. KETKAR, J)