wp2955.10 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2955 OF 2010 Dnyaneshwar s/o Daulat Malkar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ...Respondents ..... Mr. Vivek Dhage, advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.K. Kadam, AGP for respondent No. 1 Ms Geeta Deshpande, advocate for respondent No.2 ..... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATED : 13TH OCTOBER, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 Heard. 2 The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher working with respondent No.2 Zilla Parishad, claims increments from the year 1992 to 1999. The petitioner is still in service. The petitioner submits that on 20.1.1992 the petitioner is appointed to serve till 30.4.1992 or till the candidates were selected by Selection Board. The petitioner preferred writ petition bearing No. 2250 of 1992. In the said writ petition, the wp2955.10 -2- Division Bench observed that the petitioner’s request to continue in service till the properly selected candidate was available, was justified. Therefore, the petition was allowed in terms of prayer clause "E" therein. The petitioner submits that thereafter an appointment order was issued on 24.11.1992 by referring to the Government Resolution and the order passed by the High Court. The petitioner was again appointed temporarily till availability of the candidate from the Selection Board. The petitioner, sensing his removal from service, filed writ petition bearing No. 2882 of 1992. By an order dated 24.9.1993 it was directed to continue the services as Secondary Assistant Teacher pending hearing and final disposal of the writ petition. The petitioner could continue due to passing of the order by the High Court. 3 By an order dated 8.9.2005, writ petition No.2882 of 1992 came to be rejected. Para 3 and 4 of the said order reads thus:- “3. The petitioner’s claim to the post prior thereto is ill founded. The petitioner was an adhoc appointee temporarily appointed for a period of six months or until the candidate is made available from the Subordinate Selection Board for appointment in the said post, whichever is earlier. The continuance of the petitioner under interim order cannot clothe him with any further right. Having regard to the length of service wp2955.10 -3- that the petitioner has temporarily put in, the petitioner has been granted the benefit of the above referred Government Resolution. 4. In this view of the matter, the claim made in the petition is rejected. However, we clarify that the petitioner would continue to get the benefits of the Government Resolution referred to herein above. Writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim order is vacated.” 4 It is not disputed that the petitioner was continued in service under an order dated 27.7.1999 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. It was mentioned in the order that the petitioner's appointment would be effective from 29.4.1999. The petitioner would not be entitled for the benefits prior to the said date. The petitioner's service book was accordingly prepared showing him to be an employee w.e.f. 29.4.1999. 5 Now, the contention of the petitioner is that in the light of the Government Resolutions dated 8.3.1999, 29.8.2001 and 24.5.2002, the petitioner is entitled for increments for the services rendered by him during the period from 1992 to 1999. 6 Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to order passed wp2955.10 -4- by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, in the proceeding of Original Application filed by some employees working with Industrial Training Institute at Jalna and Aurangabad, which order, according to the counsel, was confirmed by the High Court and the Apex Court. Learned counsel has referred to Rule 36 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 1981. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not claiming regularization from the year 1992 but only increments. 7 On behalf of the Zilla Parishad an affidavit in reply has been filed. In the reply, it is denied that the petitioner is in continuous service since 1992. New service book was prepared showing the petitioner to be in service from 29.4.1999, which has been accepted by the petitioner. Reliance is placed by the deponent on the observations made by the Division Bench in writ petition No.2882 of 1992. It is further averred that the Government Resolution dated 1.3.1997 is not applicable to the services of the Zilla Parishad. The said G.R. was issued prior to G.R. dated 8.3.1999. The learned counsel appearing for Zilla Parishad referred to the observations of the Division Bench in the proceeding of writ petition No. 2882 of 1992 and submitted that the petitioner was serving purely on temporary basis from 20.1.1992 till 24.11.1992 and he was further continued due to the interim order passed by the Division Bench in the proceeding of writ petition No. 2882 of 1992, which petition ultimately came to be rejected. The wp2955.10 -5- petitioner is not entitled for grant of increments. 8 We have considered the submissions advanced by both the counsel. The petitioner has approached this Court at a highly belated stage for claiming increments for the period from 1992 to 1999. There is no justifiable explanation in respect of the delay caused in approaching this Court by invoking extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9 After noticing the appointment orders and the order passed by this Court in the petitions filed by the petitioner, we are of the view that the continuation of the petitioner in service from 24.11.1992 till 27.7.1999 was merely due to interim order passed by the High court in the proceedings of writ petition No. 2882 of 1992. The appointment order issued in favour of the petitioner, as a special case, by the Chief Executive Officer specifically clarifying that the petitioner was not entitled for any benefits prior to 29.4.1999. The earlier service book prepared prior to 29.4.1999 was directed to be cancelled. The said order has not been challenged by the petitioner at any point of time. The petitioner accepted the said order. The observations made by the Court in writ petition No. 2882 of 1992 indicate that the petitioner was not to take benefits in respect of his claim prior to 29.4.1999. wp2955.10 -6- 10 In view of the stand adopted by the Zilla Parishad and the order passed by the Division Bench, we are not inclined to grant prayers of the petitioner. Writ petition is accordingly rejected. ( T.V. NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) rlj/