0606WP4128.11-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4128 OF 2011
PETITIONER :- Shrawan S/o Gomaji Lengure, Aged about
68 years, Occ. Retired, Government Servant,
R/o Gadgebabanagar, Behind Swakat Lodge,
Bramhapuri, District-Chandrapur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. Government of Maharashtra, Revenue and
Forest Department Mantralaya Mumbai-32.
Through its Secretary.
2. The Collector, Chandrapur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Meenaxi Iyer, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.K.L.Dharmadhikari, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 06.06.2017 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur dated 18/06/2003 dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a chairman in District Assistance Rehabilitation Office, Chandrapur on 25/03/1965. The services of the petitioner were confirmed in the year 1975 and since his ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:38:21 ::: 0606WP4128.11-Judgment 2/4 services were no longer required in the District Assistance and Rehabilitation Office, he was absorbed in the office of the Collector, Nagpur as a sepoy. The petitioner claimed time bound promotion and since it was not granted to him, he filed the original application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. In the absence of the counsel for the petitioner, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner on merits, by the impugned order dated 18/06/2003.
3. Ms Iyer, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is liable to be set aside, as the grounds for seeking the relief could not be canvassed since the counsel for the petitioner failed to remain present before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 18/06/2003, when the matter was listed for hearing. It is stated that in view of the settled principle that a client should not suffer for the mistake of his counsel, an opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to present his matter before the tribunal. It is submitted that a remand of the matter would be necessary, specially when the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner while allowing the original applications filed by the other similarly situated employees that were also absorbed in the departments of the government. It is submitted that grave and irreparable loss would be ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:38:21 ::: 0606WP4128.11-Judgment 3/4 caused to the petitioner if the matter is not remanded to the tribunal for a fresh decision on the same on merits. It is submitted that when the other similarly situated employees have received the benefit of time bound promotion in view of the orders passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in similar matters, the petitioner cannot be singled out.
4. Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, has supported the order of the tribunal. It is submitted that since the counsel for the petitioner had remained absent, there was no other alternative for the tribunal but to hear the matter and decide the same in the absence of the counsel. It is submitted that the tribunal has relied on the relevant government resolution to dismiss the original application filed by the petitioner.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that an opportunity needs to be granted to the petitioner to present the submissions before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on the basis of the grounds raised in the original application. Unfortunately the counsel for the petitioner remained absent before the tribunal on 18/06/2003 and the original application was decided without hearing the counsel for the petitioner. ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:38:21 :::
0606WP4128.11-Judgment 4/4 It is rightly submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a client should not be made to suffer for the mistake of his counsel. Also, since it is the case of the petitioner that similarly situated employees were granted the relief after their original applications were allowed, it would be necessary to grant an opportunity to the petitioner. The question whether similarly situated employees were granted the relief or not could be decided by the tribunal, along with the other issues after the remand. Hence, in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, it would be necessary to quash and set aside the order of the tribunal and remand the matter to the tribunal for a fresh decision, on merits, in accordance with law.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur for a fresh decision on the original application, in accordance with law. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is requested to decide the original application as early as possible, as the matter is old and the petitioner is a senior citizen. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:38:21 :::