W.P. No.641/2008
(( 1 ))
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.641 OF 2008
Niyazoddin Viqaroddin
Died, through his L.Rs.
1) Khurshid Begum Niyazoddin,
Age 65 years
2) Munnubegum w/o Aminoddin,
Age 45 years
3) Salimoddin Niyazoddin,
Age 40 years
4) Rashidoddin Niyazoddin,
Age 36 years
5) Shahnaz Begum Sharifur Rahman
Age 35 years
6) Dilshad Begum Naseroddin
Age 28 years
7) Shamshad Begum Niyazoddin,
Age 24 years
All R/o Par Mohalla,
Hakim Saudagar's House,
Pathri, Taluka Pathri,
District Parbhani ... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra
through Government Pleader,
High Court, Aurangabad.
2) The Collector, Parbhani
3) The Tahsildar, Pathri,
District Parbhani
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 01:16:06 :::
W.P. No.641/2008
(( 2 ))
4) The Godown Keeper,
Pathri Tahsil Office, Pathri,
District Parbhani ... RESPONDENTS
.....
Mrs. A.N. Ansari, Advocate for petitioners
Shri B.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3
.....
CORAM: RAVINDRA .V. GHUGE AND
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATED : 9th NOVEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.):
1. By this petition, the petitioner has put forth the following prayers in terms of prayer clauses 12(A), (B) and (C) :-
(A) To admit and allow this Writ Petition. (B) To direct the respondents to grant and release the Overtime Allowance from the year 1984 up to 31.12.1995 for 4 hours per day except Sundays.
(C) To direct the respondents to pay the interest on Overtime Allowance amount from the date he is entitled till the date actually paid to Petitioner.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that, he was appointed as a Peon with the Government Grainery at Pathri. He was not appointed as a Watchman. However, the petitioner was directed by the authorities to work as a Peon between 10.00 a.m. ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 01:16:06 ::: W.P. No.641/2008 (( 3 )) and 6.00 p.m. and then work as a Watchman between 6.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. and some times from 6.00 p.m. to 10.00 a.m. The letter issued by the Godown Keeper, dated 20.7.1990 is shown, in which, the Godown Keeper has stated that the petitioner was also working as a Watchman.
3. We have considered the strenuous submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P., who has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 to 3. Respondent No.4, the Godown Keeper at Pathri, has not appeared in the matter despite service of Court notice.
4. In the light of the submissions of the petitioner, we do not find any document placed on record whereby the appointing authority had directed the petitioner to perform duties as a Watchman though he was selected and appointed as a Peon in the Department. No such order indicating the delegation of duties has been pointed out, except that the Godown Keeper contends that the petitioner was working as a Watchman as well after performing his duties as a Peon.
5. One document is pointed out, which is said to be a letter issued by the Tahsildar, dated 29.5.1984, whereby the petitioner is said to have been directed to work as a Watchman ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 01:16:06 ::: W.P. No.641/2008 (( 4 )) from 29.5.1982. The said letter doesn't spell out whether he would be entitled to extra wages.
6. We are dealing with a case where a regularly appointed Peon, who is confirmed in employment as a Peon, claims to be working as a Watchman beyond his working hours as a Peon, and is claiming overtime for which the State has to prescribe the payment of such overtime.
7. It requires no debate that, when it comes to payment of overtime in any State instrumentality, there has to be a provision made by the competent authority, by which a specific rate has to be fixed for deciding the quantum of money that would be paid to an employee if he is performing overtime. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a Government Resolution was issued by the General Administration Department, dated 19.9.1983, prescribing the amount to be paid to a Watchman, we do not find that it would be an answer to the issue we are dealing with. The said Government Resolution prescribes the wages to be paid to a Watchman.
8. Notwithstanding the above, we find that the petitioner has already approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad Bench in Original Application ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 01:16:06 ::: W.P. No.641/2008 (( 5 )) No.393/1995. An entire claim for overtime was made before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the claim made by the petitioner and finally granted overtime for four hours from 16.6.1984 to 31.12.1995. The rest of the claim put forth by the petitioner was rejected.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically submits that the petitioner has not challenged the judgment of the Tribunal, dated 5.2.2001.
10. In the light of the above, notwithstanding the deficiencies that we have noted, the fact that the petitioner has lodged his claim before the tribunal which has adjudicated upon the same, we cannot entertain this petition for a claim made for overtime for some remainder portion, keeping in view that the entire claim for overtime has been dealt with by the Tribunal, and adjudicated upon.
11. As such, this petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
( SUNIL K. KOTWAL ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE )
JUDGE JUDGE
fmp/
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2017 01:16:06 :::