1 J-WP-6303-13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 6303 OF 2013
Ku. Bulbul d/o Adhirkumar Roy,
Aged about : 43 years,
Occ. Service, R/o Sahyog-II,
Patbandhare Vasahat,
Opp. Subhash Garden,
Nehru Chowk, Gondia,
Tah. and Distt. Gondia. ..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Irrigation Department,
Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400 032.
2. Superintending Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector),
Circle, Nagpur Office at
Vainganga Nagar, Ajani,
Nagpur.
3. Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector),
Division, Gondia,
Office at Govindpur Road,
Gondia, Tah. and Distt.Gondia.
4. Member,
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,
Mumbai, Bench at Nagpur,
Civil Lines, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri I. N. Choudhari, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:-
SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATED :-
15/06/2017.::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:03:49 :::
2 J-WP-6303-13.odt ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 19 th November, 2013 dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner.
The father of the petitioner was working in the Irrigation Department of the State Government when he was voluntarily retired from service, on the ground that he was not fit to perform his duties. According to the petitioner, on 10/12/1997, the claim of the petitioner was considered and she was appointed on compassionate ground in Class-IV category, as a Class-III post was not vacant at the relevant time. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was qualified to hold a Class-III post and the case of the petitioner for appointment to a Class-III post was recommended by the respondent and the petitioner was re-appointed in a Class-III post on 25/10/1999. On 18/04/2013, in view of the complaint made by an employee, who claimed to be senior to the petitioner and who also possessed the qualifications for appointment to a Class-III post, the petitioner was reverted to the Class-IV post, where she was initially appointed. Being aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, the petitioner filed an original application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. ::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:03:49 :::
3 J-WP-6303-13.odt The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the said order in the instant petition.
Shri Choudhari, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not have been reverted to the Class- IV post on which she was initially appointed on 10/12/1997 after a long lapse of time. It is submitted that merely on the basis of the objection raised by an employee, who claimed to be senior to the petitioner and who possessed the qualifications for appointment on a Class-III post, the petitioner could not have been reverted. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the Government Resolution dated 23rd August, 1996 in the right perspective. It is submitted that the action on the part of the respondent in reverting the petitioner on the Class-IV post, is bad in law.
Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent supported the order of the Tribunal as also the order reverting the petitioner. It is submitted that an employee appointed to a Class-IV post could be later on appointed on a Class-III post, if there is a stipulation in his appointment order in that regard. It is submitted that there is no such stipulation in the appointment order of the petitioner, appointing her in a Class-IV post ::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:03:49 ::: 4 J-WP-6303-13.odt on 10/12/1997 and the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 23rd August, 1996. It is submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered the relevant aspects of the matter to dismiss the original application filed by the petitioner.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that it would be necessary to allow this writ petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal as also the order reverting the petitioner to the Class-IV post. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on a Class-IV post on 10.12.1997 only as there was no vacancy in a Class-III post though the petitioner was qualified for appointment to a Class-III post. Without any representation by the petitioner, the respondents recommended the case of the petitioner for a re-appointment in a Class-III post as soon as there was a vacancy in the year 1999. The petitioner was re-appointed to a Class-III post on 25.10.1999. The petitioner worked on a Class-III post for almost fourteen years when, on a complaint made by one of the other employees, she was reverted to Class-IV post. The respondents should not have reverted the petitioner to the Class-IV post in the year 2013, when she was re-appointed to the Class-III post in the year 1999. It was very wrongful on the part of the respondents to have reverted the petitioner to the Class-IV post after nearly fourteen years. If the respondents had committed the mistake of re-appointing the petitioner ::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:03:49 ::: 5 J-WP-6303-13.odt on the Class-III post in the year 1999 and the petitioner was not at fault, the respondents should not have considered reverting the petitioner after a long lapse of time. Admittedly, the petitioner was qualified to hold a Class-III post when she was re-appointed in the year 1999. It would be very painful for the petitioner to work on a Class-IV post when she had worked on a Class-III post for nearly fourteen years. In view of the stay granted by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and in this Court, the petitioner continued to work on the Class-III post despite the order of her reversion, dated 18.04.2013. In the circumstances of the case, merely because the Government Resolution, dated 23.08.1996 would not strictly apply to the case of the petitioner, the petitioner could not have been reverted, solely on the basis of the complaint made by one of the employees working on a Class-IV post. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to protect the services of the petitioner on the Class-III post when she has worked on the said post for nearly eighteen years.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The order of reversion of the petitioner, dated 18.04.2013 is also quashed and set aside.
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:03:49 :::
6 J-WP-6303-13.odt Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Choulwar
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:03:49 :::