wp10345.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10345 OF 2010 Shri. Narayan Sonu Dabhade, R/o-Dongir, Tq-Chalisgaon, Dist-Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Home Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) The Police Deputy General Inspector, Nagpur Region, Police Bal, Hingoli Camp, Nagpur, 3) The Commander, Police Bal Gat No.6, Dhule, ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.M.M. Bhokarikar Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondents. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 14TH OCTOBER, 2011. wp10345.10 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as Constable on 2nd April, 1981. He resigned from services on 30th October, 1993. His resignation was accepted with effect from 3rd November, 1993. The Petitioner filed an application to withdraw his resignation, 1 and 1/2 months after acceptance of the resignation. Thereafter the Petitioner represented to the Authorities. The original application was filed before the Tribunal in the year 2010, in respect of the retiral benefits. 3. The counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner's resignation ought to have been termed as application for voluntary retirement and retiral benefits ought to have been granted to the Petitioner. The Petitioner's representations were wp10345.10 3 not considered by the authorities, therefore the Petitioner approached the Tribunal. The counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the reported Judgment in the case of Dayal Saran vs. Union of India and others,A.I.R. 1970 Punjab and Haryana, 75 (V.57 C 12), and in the case of Deokinandan Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and others, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1409 (1). 4. We have perused the impugned Judgment and order of the Tribunal, the documents placed on record and the Judgments cited supra. 5. We find that under the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, the Petitioner does not satisfy the condition in respect of qualifying services for the purposes of grant of pension. There is another hurdle in the way of the Petitioner, which is of resignation tendered by the Petitioner. The resignation was accepted with effect from 3rd November, 1993. The wp10345.10 4 Petitioner filed an application for withdrawal of resignation 1 and 1/2 months after acceptance of it. The Tribunal has rightly considered all the relevant issues. The finding of the Tribunal need not be interfered by us in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. There is no merit in the Petition. The writ Petition is dismissed. [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/OCT11