1 wp5311-10 sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5311 OF 2010 Shri Pradeep Gopal Shetye ..Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr. Blasaheb Deshmukh for petitioner. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2 CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE AND U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED : 8TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. :- 1. We have heard Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, who is aggrieved by the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal 23/03/2010 thereby rejecting Misc. application No.42/2010 filed in Original application No.18/2010. The petitioner has prayed for condonation of delay which has been turned down by the Tribunal. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a junior clerk on 2 wp5311-10 02/05/1990 at the Sassoon General Hospital on purely temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs.950 – Rs.1500/-. He was again re-imployed for a short tenure by an order dated 11/07/1990 for the period from 16/07/1990 to 11/08/1990. Similar orders were issued to him of a tenure of less than one month from time to time and the last order was dated 20/03/1991 for the period from 16/03/1991 to 25/04/1991. As he was not continued beyond 25/04/1991, he approached the Labour Court by filing Complaint (ULP) No.187/1991 and alleged that he was orally terminated from service on 15/06/1991. 3. The Labour Court by its judgment and order dated 23/12/1997 partly allowed the complaint and directed his reinstatement in service till the Sassoon General Hospital received the list of candidates from the Regional Selection Board. Not being satisfied with this order, he filed Revision Application (ULP) No.41/98. The Revision was allowed by the Industrial Court on 26/04/1999 and the Complaint filed by the petitioner was remanded back for fresh trial by the Labour Court and the judgment of the Labour Court was quashed and set aside. 4. After the matter was remanded, the petitioner came to be dismissed by the respondent No.2 vide the termination order dated 23/01/2004. Thereafter, the petitioner did not challenge the said order and started submitting representation to various authorities. He 3 wp5311-10 approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal against the termination order dated 23/6/2004 by filing Original Application No.191 of 2004. The original application came to be disposed as withdrawn on 22/11/2004. However, the Tribunal had refused to give directions sought for and only observed that the Dean, Sasson Hospital, Pune is free to consider the representation dated 8/11/2004. It appears that the petitioner submitted an application on or about 21/03/2005 praying for his appointment against the vacancy available from the backlog and the Chief Administrative Officer from the Directorate of Medical Education and Research, Government of Maharashtra by his order dated 30/03/2005 informed him that he should contact the establishment where he was employed. Finally, he approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No.18 of 2010 along with Misc. Application No.42 of 2010 for condonation of delay. 5. The Tribunal, considered the tenures of intermittent appointments of the petitioner from time to time and the final termination order dated 23/01/2004 and the communication dated 29/09/2005 issued by the respondents stating that the petitioner could not be reinstated as he is already age barred. 6. As per the Tribunal if the challenge was to the order of termination dated 23/1/2004 and if his representation was turned down 4 wp5311-10 on 29/09/2005, he could not claim that the cause of action would arise from the communication dated 29/9/2005. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the petitioner could not make out a good and sufficient reasons to condone the delay, more so, having regard to the prayers made in the original application which read as under :- "10(b) By suitable order or direction this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondent to reinstate the applicant on his original post of junior Clerk since 23-01-2004 with all consequential benefits and back wages. 10(c) By suitable order or direction this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondent to treat the continued service of the applicant from 23-01-2004 and regularize his service as per G.R. dated 08-03-99." 7. Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had put in about 14 years of service. The Tribunal did not consider this material aspect and without giving reasons it turned down the prayer for condonation of delay. 8. The petitioner was admittedly employed for a specific tenure by an order in writing from time to time and the last of his tenures had ended on 25/04/1991. The Labour Court reinstated him in service on 23/1/1997 but with a specific rider that he would be continued only till 5 wp5311-10 the regularly selected candidate was made available from the Regional Selection Board. During the pendency of the Complaint before the Labour Court on remand by the Industrial Court, as noted earlier, the regularly selected S.C. candidate was selected to the post of Junior Clerk. Against the post reserved, the petitioner could not have been continued and consequently, on 23/01/2004 he was removed. Thus, in any case, he worked from 02/05/1990 to 25/04/1991 and that too intermittently and thereafter, he was reinstated by the Labour Court as per the order dated 23/12/1997. He approached the Tribunal more than four years later, even if we take into consideration the order passed by the Tribunal on 22/11/2004 in O.A. No.191/2004. This inordinate delay was not explained by the petitioner and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in turning down the prayer for condonation of delay. 9. Hence the petition fails and the same is hereby rejected. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)