Arun Parasram Wankhede vs The Commissioner Nagpur ...

                                                                                  1                                                                wp4536.14

                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                 NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR


                                                       WRIT PETITION NO.4536/2014


Arun Parasram Wankhede, 
aged about 45 Yrs., Occu. Service, 
R/o Rampuri Ward (Camp Area), 
Behind Z.P. High School, Chamorshi
Road, Gadchiroli, Distt. Gadchiroli.                                                                                                                            ..Petitioner.

                          ..Vs..

1.          The Commissioner,
            Nagpur Division, Civil Lines, 
            Nagpur. 

2.          The Chief Executive Officer,
            Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli. 

3.          The Deputy Chief Executive Officer,
            Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli.                                                                                                            ..Respondents.
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Shri B.M. Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. 
Shri N.H. Joshi, A.G.P. for respondent No.1. 
Ms. M.P. Munshi, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 




                                                                 CORAM :  Z.A. HAQ, J.

                                                                 DATE  :     2.11.2017.



                                                        

ORAL JUDGMENT

1.                        Heard. 



2.                        Rule.   Rule made returnable forthwith.


                    ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017                                                                              ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2017 23:55:50 :::
                                            2                                                                wp4536.14

3. The petitioner / employee has challenged the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dismissing his appeal under Rule 14 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 and rejecting his claim for time bound promotion w.e.f. 23 rd December, 1997 and consequential benefits.

4. Undisputedly, the petitioner is an employee of the Zilla Parishad since 23rd December, 1985. As per the government resolution dated 8 th June, 1995 the employees of the Zilla Parishads working in Category III and Category IV and who have no chance of promotion are entitled for facilities of higher grade after completion of 12 years continuous service. According to the petitioner as he had been working in Class III Cadre he was entitled for the benefits under the above referred government resolution w.e.f. 23rd December, 1997 but it is given to him w.e.f. 23rd December, 2000.

5. The facts on record show that the benefits of time bound promotion are not given to the petitioner w.e.f. 23 rd December, 1997 as according to the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the annual confidential reports of the petitioner for the year 1994 - 1995 were not up to the mark. It is not disputed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the remarks / adverse remarks in the annual confidential reports of the petitioner for 1994 - 1995 were not communicated ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2017 23:55:50 ::: 3 wp4536.14 to the petitioner. It is well settled that if the adverse remarks are not communicated, the same cannot be used against the employee for depriving the employee of his legitimate claim.

6. As the remarks / adverse remarks were not communicated, they could not have been relied to deny the benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. 23 rd December, 1997.

7. The learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the prayers made by the petitioner need not be considered as the petition is filed after about 10 years of arising of the cause of action and the delay and latches are not explained. Though there are latches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court, in the facts of this case, relief cannot be denied to the petitioner as injustice is done to him by depriving him of his legitimate claim against the established principles of law and without any justification.

8. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause Nos.(c) and (d) of the petition, which read as follows:

"(c) Quash and set aside the order A. No.155/2004-2005 dated 04/10/2005 passed by Hon'ble Additional Commissioner Nagpur Ann. E being illegal arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law.

         (d)            Further direct the respondent nos.2 & 3 to modify the

          ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017                                   ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2017 23:55:50 :::
                                              4                                                                wp4536.14

order dated 03/07/2004 and grant benefits of higher grade w.e.f. 23/12/1997 instead of 23/12/2000 and grant all consequential benefits including the arrears of payment."

In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs JUDGE Tambaskar.