1 wp1233-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1233 OF 2010 1] Dr.Dinkar Sadashivrao Deshpande .. PETITIONER Vs 1] Aurangabad Municipal Corp. Aurangabad Through its Commissioner. .. RESPONDENT ... Shri Pradeep Deshmukh h/f Shri H.A.Joshi, Adv.for petitioner. Shri S.K.Kadam,AGP for Respondent State. ... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T.V.NALAWADE,J. DATE : 23/09/2011 P.C. : 1] Heard. 2] The petitioner was appointed as medical officer in respondent Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. While he was to retire, the Corporation initiated proceedings in the year 2002 for allegedly committing irregularity in purchase of medicine. The petitioner’s pensionary benefits were withheld. Writ Petition No.2449/03 was filed by the petitioner. During pendency of this Petition, the disciplinary 2 wp1233-10 authority awarded recovery of some amount. Against the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred an Appeal in the year 2004 before the Standing Committee. By resolution dated 27/1/2005, the Standing Committee allowed the Appeal and directed the Municipal Corporation to release pensionary benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner made several representations to the Corporation. In February 2010, the Corporation placed the same issue before the General Body under Resolution No.989. The action of the respondent Corporation in placing the said issue before the General Body meeting was malafide and arbitrary according to the petitioner. 3] The learned counsel Shri Deshmukh submits that in the light of the order passed by the Standing Committee, General Body ceases to have powers to sit over the judgment of the Standing Committee. Affidavit in Rejoinder is also filed by the petitioner. 4] The learned counsel for Corporation submits that in the light of provisions u/s 56(2) (e) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, and in view of the facts of the case, the issue was placed before the General Body. Final decision is yet to be taken by the General Body in that regard. The Petition is premature according to the counsel. The counsel submits that the petitioner is getting provisional pension but the gratuity is withheld. 3 wp1233-10 5] Considering the facts of the case and the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. Petition is accordingly rejected. 6] In view of disposal of Petition, Civil Application No.653/11 stands disposed of. [T.V.NALAWADE,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] umg/wp1233-10