VENUMADHAV VINAYAK RATNALIKARversusTHE DIRECTOR OF MARKETING

2026:BHC-AUG:39312


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                              17 WRIT PETITION NO. 12229 OF 2021


                               VENUMADHAV VINAYAK RATNALIKAR
                                              VERSUS
                                  THE DIRECTOR OF MARKETING
                                                 ...
                              Mr. P.P. Shahane, Advocate for petitioner
                           Mr. S.K. Shirse, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3
                          Mr. U.B. Bilolikar, Advocate for respondent No.6
                                                 ...

                                          CORAM :      ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.

                                          DATE :       24th AUGUST, 2026


            ORDER :



            .           The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Secretary

            with respondent No.5 APMC vide appointment order dated 26.05.2009.

            Respondent Nos.4 and 5 questioned the resolutions passed by respondent

            No.5 on the basis of which appointment order was issued in favour of

            petitioner before respondent No.2 and also questioned the appointment of

            the present petitioner.   Respondent No.2, set aside the resolutions and

            proceedings of the meetings in which the petitioner was selected and decision

            to appoint him on the post of Assistant Secretary was taken by respondent
                                    2                         17_WP_12229_2021



No.5 APMC vide order dated 31.05.2010.


2          This order dated 31.05.2010 was challenged by respondent No.5

APMC by filing appeal before respondent No.1 Director of Marketing. The

appeal was allowed vide order dated 24.02.2012. Order dated 31.05.2010

passed by respondent No.2 Divisional Joint Registrar was set aside and

matter was remanded back for reconsideration.


3          This order dated 24.02.2012 was challenged by respondent

Nos.4 and 5 before this Court in Writ Petition No.7031 of 2011. This Court

directed respondent No.1 to decide the appeal afresh.    Respondent No.2

Divisional Joint Registrar confirmed the earlier order holding that

appointment was bad.


4          Respondent No.5 APMC again filed appeal before respondent

No.1 which was dismissed on 19.07.2013. The appeal was dismissed as not

maintainable. This order dated 19.07.2013 was challenged by the petitioner

before this Court vide Writ Petition No.6230 of 2013. This Court held that

the appeal was maintainable and directed respondent No.1 to decide the

same on merits.


5          Respondent No.5 APMC terminated the services of the petitioner

vide order dated 29.07.2013 after dismissal of the aforesaid appeal by
                                      3                         17_WP_12229_2021



respondent No.1 Director of Marketing.


6           The petitioner preferred appeal No.41 of 2015 before respondent

No.1 Director of Marketing challenging order dated 31.05.2010 passed by

respondent No.2 Divisional Joint Registrar and the termination order dated

29.07.2013 passed by APMC.        The said appeal came to be allowed by

respondent No.1 Director of Marketing vide order dated 25.01.2016.

Respondent No.1 directed respondent No.5 APMC to reinstate the petitioner

on the post of Assistant Secretary, however, respondent No.1 did not pass any

order with respect to back wages and as such request for back wages is

denied. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order dated 25.01.2016 to the

extent to which relief of back wages is denied.


7           Perusal of the Judgment delivered by the Director of Marketing

will demonstrate that the petitioner had raised as specific contention that

ever since the termination of services he was out of employment and he was

not gainfully employed elsewhere.      Learned Advocate for the petitioner

argues that the services of the petitioner have not been terminated on

account of any misconduct. He states that services were terminated due to

orders passed by authorities under the APMC Act and immediately after

services were terminated on 29.07.2013, this Court had granted stay to the

said order. The learned Advocate for the petitioner therefore contends that
                                     4                          17_WP_12229_2021



respondent APMC ought to have allowed the petitioner to work on the post in

view of interim order dated 02.08.2013.


8            Per contra, learned Advocate appearing for respondent APMC

contends that APMC has not terminated the services on its own. He contends

that in the then prevailing situation it had no option than to terminate the

services of the petitioner.


9            It will be pertinent to state that the order dated 19.07.2013

passed by respondent No.1 Director of Marketing holding that appeal was not

maintainable was challenged by petitioner vide Writ Petition No.6230 of

2013. The petitioner had sought stay to order dated 19.07.2013, whereby

the appeal preferred by respondent No.1 APMC was dismissed as not

maintainable. The contention of the petitioner is that in view of the said

interim order which was passed on 02.08.2013, respondent No.5 APMC

should have been reinstated in service immediately after 02.08.2013. The

interim order is not an order granting stay to termination of services of

petitioner on 19.07.2013.


10           In the peculiar circumstances of the present case where the

services were not terminated by the respondent APMC on its own and that

the petitioner was required to be removed in view of order dated 31.05.2010
                                       5                         17_WP_12229_2021



passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar and also having regard to an express

statement in the appeal preferred before the Director of Marketing regarding

non gainful employment and also having regard to the statement regarding

non gainful employment it is not controverted by the respondent APMC, ends

of justice will be subserved by directing the respondent APMC to pay 50%

back wages to the petitioner for a period between 29.07.2013 i.e. the date of

termination till 25.01.2016 i.e. the date of impugned order.            In the

circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.




                                                  ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )



agd