The withdrawal of a challenge to an appointment by the appointing authority and the subsequent approval of the appointment by the relevant authority validate the appointment and entitle the employee to retiral benefits.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for direction to direct the respondents to release all the retiral dues of the petitioner with all consequential and incidental benefits.

2. Heard Mr. Vandan Baxi, learned advocate for Nanavati & Nanavati for the petitioners, Mr. Kurven Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. Deepak Sanchela, learned advocate for respondent No.5 – Dakor Municipality.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are stated as under:

3.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed on ad-hoc basis on the post of Octroi Inspector vide resolution No.427 passed by the Dakor Municipal Borough in the year 1988, as the petitioner was meeting with the requisite qualifications for the post of Octroi Inspector. Though initially, the appointment of the petitioner was for a period of 29 days, the same was extended from time to time subsequently. In February, 1989, the petitioner was orally terminated by the respondent No.5, and therefore, being aggrieved by the same the petitioner raised dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Nadiad and was culminated into Reference (LCR) No.70 of 1990.

3.2 During the pendency of the said reference, settlement was arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No.5 and accordingly the petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 29.12.1991.

3.3 Though the petitioner was required to be reinstated on the post of Octroi Inspector, at that time when the settlement took place between the parties, the post of Octroi Inspector was not available, and therefore, the petitioner was offered the post of Sanitary Sub-Inspector with an understanding that as and when the post of Octroi Inspector falls vacant, the petitioner would be appointed on the said post. Accordingly, the petitioner accepted the aforesaid condition and was reinstated in the service. Thereafter, in the year 1996, Dakor Municipality passed a resolution to request the Director of Municipalities to accord the approval for appointment of the petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, a proposal was sent to the Director of Municipalities. However, the Director of Municipalities, refused to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner, and therefore, being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred petition being Special Civil Application No.7038 of 1998. Ultimately, the aforesaid petition was withdrawn vide order dated 13.7.2012 as the petitioner withdrew the same with a liberty to file representation before the authority in light of resolutions dated 22.1.2004 and other relevant documents. After the withdrawal of the petition, the petitioner preferred Misc. Civil Application No.1918 of 2012 with a prayer to recall and modify the earlier order dated 13.7.2012 whereby the petition was withdrawn. However, Misc. Civil Application preferred by the petitioner to recall and modify the earlier order was rejected vide order dated 19.7.2012.

3.4 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 19.7.2012, the petitioner preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.973 of 2012 before this Court, which also came to be dismissed by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 1.8.2012.

3.5 Thereafter, the petitioner made a detailed representation to the Director of Municipalities and ultimately considering the representation made by the petitioner as well as recommendation of the Collector, vide letter dated 20.6.1998 and other relevant resolutions passed by the municipality, the Director of Municipalities vide order dated 10/18.4.2013 granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner.

3.6 Surprisingly, though the respondent municipality itself vide resolution passed in the year 1996, requested the Director of Municipalities to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner and when the Director of Municipality vide order dated 10/18.4.2013 sanctioned appointment of t