1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6372 OF 2009 Sheshrao S/o.Ganpatrao Jogdand, (C/o. Pralhadrao Shinde) Age-60 years, Occu-Nil, Near Hanuman Mandir, Lokmanya Nagar, Tq. and Dist. Parbhani - 431401 PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Hon’ble Secretary, The State of Maharashtra, School Education Department, Mantralaya Vistar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 032. 2. Hon’ble Director of School Education, Maharashtra State, Central Building, Pune – 411001. 3. Hon’ble Divisional Deputy Director, (School Education) Divisional Office, Aurangabad. 4. Hon’ble Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Parbhani – 431 401. 5. Hon’ble Superintendent, Salary Grant Unit, Parbhani – 431 401 RESPONDENTS Mr.S.G.Jogdand, Party in person for petitioner Mr.V.B.Ghatge, learned AGP for respondents/State 2 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) RESERVED ON : 25/09/2009 PRONOUNCED ON : 30/09/2009 ORDER : (Per A.V.Potdar, J.) 1. By the present writ petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to issue directions to respondent no.1 to 4 to pay salary from 01/05/1974 till today and to grant him pension for the alleged services. He has also prayed for issuance of directions not to disturb his salary and pension which can be availed for which he is entitled as per Rule 19 under The M.E.P.S. Rules 1981. 2. We have heard petitioner in person and the learned AGP appearing for the respondents. At the outset, the facts which gave rise to file the present writ petition can be summarized as – It appears that the petitioner was serving in the Secondary School at Isad, Tq.Gangakhed, Dist.Parbhani as an assistant full time teacher. He was appointed on 13/11/1972 on permanent vacancy. He is served with the notice, as the school in which he was serving was closed by the competent authorities and due to that, his services came to an end as he was not absorbed in any other school. It appears that thereafter he has made correspondence with various departments and ultimately in the year 2005, filed an appeal u/s. 9 3 of The M.E.P.S. Act before the School Tribunal Latur, Region Latur which was numbered as Appeal No.116/2006. Undisputedly on the face of it, it appears that this appeal is filed after 23 years after the services of the petitioner was terminated. That appeal was also filed without filing an application for condoning the delay. By way of an order dated 22/03/2007, the appeal came to be dismissed. It further appears that the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal was challenged by way of writ petition and the said writ petition also appeared to be withdrawn by the counsel of the petitioner. Thereafter the present writ petition is filed for the reliefs as stated in the opening paragraph of the judgment. 3. From these undisputed facts, one fact is clear even though disputed by the petitioner that the services of the petitioner came to an end on 01/05/1974. As per the rules even if assuming that this is a termination order, this is to be challenged before the School Tribunal, the proper forum, within the stipulated period provided under the Law. Admittedly the appeal was preferred against this order but not in time but after the gap of 23 years. Then it is but natural and rightly also the said appeal was dismissed by The Presiding Officer/Member, School Tribunal as not maintainable. This order was challenged by way of writ petition which writ petition was also withdrawn. In the light of all these facts, one fact is clear from the period for which the petitioner was served as an Assistant Teacher, that period can not be counted to be a period permissible under the rules for the service for which the petitioner is entitled for 4 pension in Law. As the petition suffers from latches and also not maintainable in Law, the petition sans any merit, hence dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/SEP 2009/wp6372-09