wp7512.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7512 OF 2010 Vijay s/o Madhukar Pawar, R/o-Adivasi Unnati Seva Mandal Rajur, At Post-Shendi, Tq-Akole, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through it's Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai-38 and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mrs. Netrali Jain Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.V.D. Godbharle , A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr.R.D. Bhalerao Advocate for Respondent No.3. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 11TH JANUARY, 2011. wp7512.10 2 PER COURT [PER S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] : 1. By way of present Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner assails the order dated 9th December, 2005 passed by the Commissioner, Tribal Development, Maharashtra State, Nashik, by virtue of which, though the Petitioner was granted permanency, he was denied back wages. 2. Mrs. Jain, learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that there was no reason to deny the back-wages to the Petitioner. When the Petitioner was granted regularization of services, the order of back-wages would follow. On this sole count, the Commissioner should have granted the back-wages. 3. Mr. Bhalreao, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 submits that the present wp7512.10 3 Petition deserves to be dismissed on the count of latches and acquiescence. After the order passed, the Petitioner resigned on 10th December, 2005 and after a long slumber of five years, has filed the present Writ Petition. Mrs. Jain, learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner was prosecuting the cause with the Respondent Management and was filing representations after representations. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the documents on record. It is a fact that the Petitioner has resigned on 10th December, 2005. Even the representations on record are of the year 2009 onwards. For a long slumber of five years, the Petitioner has not challenged the said order; on the contrary has acquiesced to the said order. Once the Petitioner has acquiesced to the said order; then the Petitioner would not be entitled for any relief and as such the Petition deserves wp7512.10 4 to be dismissed on the ground of latches and acquiescence. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly, however with no order as to the costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JAN11/wp7512.10