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 2026:BHC-AUG:39312 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