SOPANJENU DHAVLE Vs. PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Letters Patent Appeal no. 179 of 1993, writ petition No. 4600 of 1993 and writ petition No. 1961 of 1993.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the parties as the employer and employee. In Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant is the employee and the respondents are employer while in writ petition Nos. 4600 of 1993 and 1961 of 1993, the petitioners are employer and the respondent is the employee.

(3.) IN so far as writ petition No. 1961 of 1993 is concerned, the learned counsel for the employer fairly submitted that the said writ petition arises out of the suit filed by the employee seeking injunction against the employer from obstructing or preventing from performing his duties as Assistance Octroi superintendent and how since the employee has superannuated, the suit itself had become infructuous and so also the writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.